E 179 
.5 
.A5 






t^ A^ /^>%^>> '^^ ^"^ ->C^^^ 



V.^'^ 



>^^. ..^ /. 



^ 









^ v^^^^- /\ ^^^/^v^'% °^^: ^'\ -^^Z ^ 

..0 






-^^ ^^-.^ ^^^^^ ^ - '^^ c^-.-^^^ffl^^ ^^ 









■^: <.^°<, 



'?*■• j^-ni. :. ^: <c^^ > . , ■^- xo^ 



^<^-^ 



'^^ .'■> *^^- 






^^o 

w 



- k 






-"H^xmx. 



v7 -".-ti • K.. 



^ MMi 



^ .^ /.a^^,' ■ • -- ^^^--^^ 









■<tj. ' o , I. 



.0^ 



T, 



O " G 



' ' ' . v^ 



\\ 



v-^. 



r<> 






>-?v -r 
-•A 






.^^ 






> 



A. 









■>,^?^/v;^ 



'^^ *■ - « o ' <^> - 

V " * °' cv 



a"^ ""^^^^A*^^ < 



^ 



.^. 






.o 



,^ 



o- 



^0>" 



,H O 



^.^ J' "o ^^^m^ .0 



..^ 



■.^ 



<^ 



C3 *»,,♦' ,0- 






. - " ,0' 

.0^ c 



- '?» 



o 



'^_ 



•\ 



/^ 



o 



A 



\ 



^ ,'^ 



'iJf 






V 



^^" 









•"I 



\V,-V/.-/.-'7 






'>^'- 



4 









■^^. 









tf 



.^* 



.0 



,0 



Cj> * O N O 






.s^ ^'^^^r: 



') 



,*^°^ 






C 



0^ c 






* ,0-' 






^^ 



-^, 



•^ ' O N O 



A 



^ 



^' 



-"'^ 












' » _ <? 






.0 o 

C • ^\ o 



■-y^^^,' ^* 



S- "v/' 



.'Jv' 



o > 






,^^ 



o 









A 



^*f^ 



'^* ^"^^ ^:^_,;„;v.<^° .^"^ \^y..:.:J^ ^ '^^ 



^o V^ ^ ^^ 



.<^' 



> 



> 






;#: 






V^ 



O > 






'"A -^ . 'o.\* ,0^ /s ^ ■ ^ -C^ 'o,\* 









<?'. 



N O ^V 



* 



•>^. 



.^^l-o 'n<, ,4 



v^ V - ' • ° ' C\ 

fe', '^> .<5' /.r^^^/i/o '^,- 



■ V 



^^ ^^ :W/>i{. \./ 






\ %,^* .'i'^'i^^^;'. v,^^ 






''<?. 



-^^ 






o 



.-Jy 



^ 









o * 

.1 



-< 

>.^^l 









.^ 






o_ ~ c , ^(3 



o » o 



.^ 






<P 









c-V 






' 1- - 



-^ 






^1^ A V 



-^ 



■^^ 



<^, 



o 



<5^ " o N " .<S^ (>^ " » « o . -^ 















^^0^ 



%^. *'"''' \^' 



"^ 



^^. 



°X 






^^^Sfe; %,<^ ; 



\\ v^ 



6' 



^V 



•^ 



^--0^ 



• .-■" 



'^'^. 



o 



^'^ 



v 






L ' a 






^^^ .^' 






4' 






v^^ ,„„ °^^>^ ^''^^ 



'> 



. o 






A 









-J." 






<^. 



'^^ 



o « ' 







^i.;v7' "^ 



,-{^ 









.<^ 






^^^^' 






^^ 















-^^0^ 



c" 













'^ - - V -^ ^- ^^ '.\s'^ /\ <r. 'o. 



,0 



.0 



o V 






,0' c " " ° ■ 






"2- 

' « ^■<5) 



V 






-<. 



<^^. 






-/- 






CANADIA 



NORTHERN 



OF THE 



UNITED SI 



THE DEMARCATION OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN 
AND CANADA, FROM THE ATLANTIC TO THE 
PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE PORTIONb 
WHICH REQUIRE MORE COMPLETE DEF. 
TION AND MARKING. 



REPORT PREPARED FOR THE DEPARTIVLBNT OF t 

BY 

CHANDEER P. ANDERSON, 

1906. 



^VASHINGTONi 

Government Frxnting Office. 
1006. 



3m 



/ v-l' 






I 



c 



1-, 






TABLE OF »/( NTENTS. 



Part I. 

The iiortkeasfern hounciTy. 

Page. 

The boundary through Passamaquoddy Bay 3 

From the mouth of the St. Croix River to the St. Lawrence River 8 

Negotiations concerning the northeastern boundary question and its final 

settlement 13 

The re-marking of the boundary between New York a 1 Canada, and pro- 
posals for re-marking the entire line to the mouth of the St. Croix River.. 20 
Arrangements for marking and mapping the boundary l>etween the States 
of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, on the one side, aiid Canada, on 
the other 25 

Part II. 

The boundary from the intersection of the forty-ffth parallel and the St. 
Laivrence River to the Lake of the Woods. 

The portion of this line included in Article VI of the Treaty of 1814... 31 

The line from the foot of Neebish Rapids to the most northwestern point of 

the Lake of the Woods, included in Article VII of the Treaty of 1814 35 

The settlement of this boundary by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842... 40 

Separate survey by Canada, i8g6 45 

Free and open navigation of cerain portions of the boundary waters provided 

for in the Treaty of 1842 47 

Boundary channels apparently can not be dredged by either Govern- 
ment without the consent of the other 48 

Cession of Horse-Shoe Reef in 1850 by Great Britain to the United States 50 

The location of the boundary with respect to two islands in Lac la Croix 

and an island in the Lake of the Woods 52 

Proposals for the more complete definition and marking of the entire bound- 
ary from the St. Lawrence at the forty-fifth parallel to the northwest angle 

of the Lake of the Woods, by joint action of the two Governments 55 

Negotiations by the Joint High Commission in 1898-99 58 

Later negotiations 59 

The line as shown on the original treaty maps reproduced on modern charts. 61 

III 



t=> 



Part III 

The nortJnvestern boundary, from tJ: r ruesternviost point of the Lake 

of the Woods to t c /' ■ 'fie Oeean. 

Page. 

Boundary east of the Rocky Mountains 65 

Boundary west of the Rocky Mountaiv^i to the coast 67 

Demarcation of the land boundary west of the Rocky Mountains 68 

The boundary marks and monuments 70 

The water boundary from the forty-ninth .parallel of north latitude where it 

strikes the Gulf of Georgia to the Pacilic Ocean 75 

Surveying and marking the boundary from the Lake of the Woods to the 

Rocky Mountains 77 

Subsequent negotiations and arrjingements for re-marking the line from the 

Lake of the Woods to the Pacific *^')cean 7g 

West of the Rocky Mountains 79 

East of the Rocky Mountains 82 

Several small sections of United States territory separated from the United 
States by the boundary as laid down at the northwest angle of the Lake of 
the Woods 83 

IV 



.1 



V / 



FART I. 



THE KORTHEASTEM BOUNDARY. 



THE NORTHEASTERN BOUNDARY. 



THE BOUNDARY THROUGH PASSAMAQUODDY BAY. 

The international boundary through Passamaquoddy Bay is 
defined by the following treaty provisions: 

In Article II of the Provisional Treaty of 1782 and in Article II 
of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 the boundary line is carried down 
the middle of the St. Croix River to its mouth, and from that point 
to the Atlantic its course is left to be determined under the general 
provision which refers to the boundaries of the United States as — 

"Comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part 
of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be 
drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries be- 
tween Nova Scotia on the one part, and East Florida on the other, 
shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean; 
excepting such islands as now are, or heretofore have been, within 
the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia." 

It will be observed that this provision gives no description of the 
course of the boundary line from the mouth of the St. Croix River 
to the sea. Apparently, the intention was that the line should be a 
water line passing among the islands so as to leave, if possible, all 
of the British islands on one side and the American islands on the 
other. The location of the line, therefore, depended upon the 
nationality of the several islands in the bay, many of which were 
claimed by both Governments. The situation was further compli- 
cated by the fact that the identity of the River St. Croix was in 
dispute. 

This feature of the question was settled by the Commissioners 
appointed under the provisions of Article V of the Treaty of 1794 to 
"decide what river is the River St. Croix intended by the treaty." 
The Commissioners determined upon the river now known as the 
St. Croix, which constitutes a portion of the present boundary. 

The efforts made by the two Governments to settle the owner- 
ship of the disputed islands in the bay resulted in the negotiation in 
1803 and again in 1807 of treaties fixing the line, but in each case 
the treaty failed of ratification. 

The treaty negotiated in 1803 by Rufus King, on the part of the 
United States, and the Right Honorable Robert Banks Jenkinson 



(commonly called Lord Hawkesbury), on the part of Great Britain, 
was amended by the Senate by striking out Article V, relating to 
the boundary west of the Lake of the Woods, and ratifications were 
not exchanged in consequence. 

This treaty provided for the boundary in Passamaquoddy Bay as 
follows: 

"Article i. The line hereinafter described shall and hereby is 
declared to be the Boundary between the Mouth of the River St. 
Croix and the Bay of Fundy, that is to say, a line beginning in the 
middle of the Channel of the River St. Croix at its Mouth (as the 
same has been ascertained by the Commissioners appointed for that 
Purpose) thence through the middle of the Channel between Deer 
Island on the East and North, and Moose Island and Campo-Bello 
Island on the West and South, and round the Eastern Point of 
Campo-Bello Island to the Bay of Fundy. And the Islands and 
Waters northward and eastward of the said Boundary together with 
the Island of Campo-Bello situate to the southward thereof are 
hereby declared to be within the Jurisdiction, and part of His Maj- 
esty's Province of New Brunswick; and the Islands and Waters 
southward and westward of the said Boundary, except only the 
Island of Campo-Bello, are hereby declared to be within the Juris- 
diction, and Part of Massachusetts, one of the said United States." 

A similar attempt was made by Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney in 
1807, but their treaty failed by reason of other causes. (Moore's 
International Law Digest, Vol. V, p. 717, sec. 834, Webster-Ashburton 
Treaty.) This treaty, as proposed by Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, 
was inclosed in their letter of April 25, 1807, and is entitled : "Addi- 
tional and explanatory articles, signed the day of , 1807, 

to be added to the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation be- 
tween His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, 
signed at London, the 31st day of December, 1806." The provision 
relating to the line through Passamaquoddy Bay is as follows: 

"Article i. The line hereinafter described shall, and is hereby 
declared to be, the boundary between the mouth of the river St. 
Croix and the Bay of Fundy; that is to say, a line beginning in the 
middle of the channel of the river St. Croix, at its mouth, as the same 
has been ascertained by the commissioners appointed for that pur- 
pose; thence through the middle of the channel, between Deer 
Island, Marvel island, and Campo Bello island on the east, and 
Moose island, Dudley island, and Frederick island on the west; and 
round the south point of Campo Bello island to the Bay of Fundy; 
and the islands and waters eastward of the said boundary are hereby 
declared to be within the jurisdiction and part of His Majesty's 
province of New Brunswick, and the islands and waters westward 
of the said boundary are declared to be within the jurisdiction and 
part of Massachusetts, one of the said United States; notwithstand- 
ing which, a full and entire right of navigation is reserved to the 
United States in the channel between Deer island on the east and 



north, and Moose island and Campo Bello island on the west and 
south, and round the east point of Campo Bello island into the Bay 
of Fundy; the aforesaid channel frequently affording the only con- 
venient and practicable navigation." (See American State Papers, 
vol. 3; Foreign Relations, pp. 162-164.) 

After the war of 1S12, during which the British had seized most 
of the islands in the bay, it was stipulated in the Treaty of Peace 
signed at Ghent in 1814 that all possessions taken during the war 
should be restored, and it was specially provided that such of the 
islands in Passamaquoddy Bay as were claimed by both parties 
should be held by the party in occupation without prejudice to the 
rights of the other party, however, until the question of title should 
M be settled. It was further agreed that the question of title should be 
determined in accordance with the rights of the parties as they were 
established at and prior to the making of the Treaty of Peace of 

1783. 

These provisions will be found in Article I and Article IV of 
the Treaty of Ghent. Under the latter article Commissioners were 
appointed — 

" to decide to which of the two contracting parties the several islands 
aforesaid do respectively belong, in conformity with the true intent of 
the said Treaty of Peace of One thousand seven hundred and eighty- 
three"; 

which decision, if rendered jointly by the Commissioners, was to be 
considered final and conclusive on both parties. 
, The British claim was urged before the Commissioners on the 
ground that the islands in dispute had been part of the Province of 
Nova Scotia in and before the year 1 783, which, under the terms of the 
treaty, would give them to Great Britain. The claim of the United 
States was based on the ground that all the islands in Passama- 
.. quoddy Bay, and also the island of Grand Menan, were within 20 
': leagues of the coast of the United States, and included within its 
boundaries, under the provisions of Article II of the Treaty of 1783, 
and it was denied that they ever were within the limits of the Prov- 
ince of Nova Scotia. 

It is unnecessary in this connection to go into the arguments or 
evidence presented before the Commission, further than to say that 
neither side based its claim of title exclusively on occupation, juris- 
diction, or possession, but both sides dealt with these points as tend- 
ing to interpret the charters and grants offered in evidence, and to 
sustain the claim of title arising therefrom. 

The Commissioners agreed upon a compromise settlement, and 
it appears that their decision was substantially in accord with the 



settlement proposed in the treaties negotiated in 1803 and 1807, by 
which it may fairly be assumed they were largely influenced. 

The decision of the Commissioners, dated November 24, 1817, 
decided — 

"That Moose Island, Dudley Island, and Frederick Island, in the 
Bay of Passamaquoddy, which is part of the Bay of Fundy, do and 
each of them does belong to the United States of America; and we 
have also decided and do decide that all the other islands, and each 
and every of them in the said Bay of Passamaquoddy, which is part 
of the Bay of Fundy, and the island of Grand Menan in the said 
Bay of Fundy, do belong to his said Britannic Majesty in con- 
formity with the true intent of the said second article of the said 
Treaty of 1783." 

Unfortunately, the Commissioners were not required to lay down 
on charts the line through the bay, and their decision left the exact 
location of the line still in a somewhat unsettled condition. Taking 
the language of the decision literally the United States was not 
entitled to any of the islands in the bay except the three named in 
the decision. A glance at the chart will show that there are a number 
of small islands between these three named islands and the American 
shore, all of which would have gone to Great Britain under a literal 
interpretation of the decision. 

A more intelligent interpretation was adopted, however, and by 
common consent the decision was regarded as applying only to the 
islands in the bay which prior to 1783 had been claimed as part of 
Nova Scotia by Great Britain. The effect of this decision thus 
interpreted was to finally settle the question of the title with respect 
to all the islands in the bay, with the exception of one small island 
known as " Pope's Folly," less than one-half an acre in size and lying 
between Frederick Island (American) and Campobello (British), and 
nearer by one-half to Campobello than to Frederick. This question 
is still unsettled and is the main and practically the only reason for 
the delay in fixing the boundary, for it so happens that this island lies 
immediately in the natural course of the boundary line through the 
bay, and it is at this point only that there has been any serious dis- 
pute as to the location of the line. The positions taken by each 
side on the several occasions when the question has been under 
discussion are briefly as follows: 

According to the American view this island, under the interpreta- 
tion given the decision in its application to the other small unnamed 
islands in the bay, should have been assigned to the United States, 
and the facts, so far as they are now ascertainable, seem to support 
this view. The United States has also contended throughout the 
dispute that a controlling reason for leaving the island on the Ameri- 
can side is found in the fact that the main ship channel at this point 



passes on the British side of the island, through which channel the 
boundary line naturally should run. 

On the other hand, Great Britain has always insisted upon a 
strict interpretation of the Commissioners' decision in its application 
to this island, and as a further ground has urged that the argument 
based on the location of the main ship channel has no force, in view 
of the fact that another, though less convenient, channel is found on 
the American side of the island which the boundary could follow, 
and that under the circumstances the island must be regarded as an 
appendage of the nearest larger island, which is Campobello, not- 
withstanding the fact that the main ship channel passes between. 

An attempt was made to settle this question under the Conven- 
tion of July 22, 1892, by which two Commissioners were appointed 
jointly — 

"to determine upon a method of more accurately marking the 
boundary line between the two countries in the waters of Passama- 
quoddy Bay in front of and adjacent to Eastport, in the State of 
Maine, and to place buoys or fix such other boundary marks as they 
may determine to be necessary." 

No joint report was made by these Commissioners. It appears 
from the separate regort made by the Commissioner for the United 
States, however, that they came to a substantial agreement and sur- 
veyed and charted the line and were prepared to recommend the 
acceptance of the line as agreed upon, with the exception of two 
parts of it about which they were unable to agree. One of these 
parts was where the line passes this island known as " Pope's Folly," 
the title to which, for the reasons above discussed, was left in some 
doubt under the decision rendered by the Commissioners under the 
fourth article of the Treaty of Ghent. 

The other part was just below Lubec Narrows. At this point 
the United States had dredged a new channel to the west of, and 
consequently on its own side of, the old channel, which, on account 
of the diversion of the current through the dredged channel, had 
filled up and was no longer used as the channel. The British Com- 
missioner claimed that the line should be carried through the new 
dredged channel. To this there was no particular objection, except 
for the fact that by so doing some fish weirs located between the 
two channels, and owned and operated for many years past by 
American fishermen, would be left on the Canadian side of the 
boundary. 

The questions of jurisdiction and ownership prior to the year 
1783 are fully stated and argued in a decision by Judge Ware, ren- 
dered in the United States District Court in the State of Maine in 
1823 (Ware's Reports, Vol. I, p. 18) in the case of "An Open Boat 



8 

and Cargo and Three Puncheons of Rum — Ricker, Claimant." In 
that case it was held that this island at that time was within the 
limits of the State of Maine. The other questions outlined above 
are fully discussed in the report of the Commissioner on the part of 
the United States under the Treaty of 1892. A copy of this report 
and of Judge Ware's opinion will be found in the pamphlet prepared 
for the information of the United States Commissioners of the Joint 
High Commission. 

An attempt was made by the Joint High Commission in 1898 to 
harmonize these differences without going into all the details neces- 
sary for a decision on a strictly legal basis, and it was proposed that 
a compromise line running as nearly straight as possible should be 
adopted. It appeared that this could be accomplished by carrying 
the line through the new dredged channel below Lubec Narrows, 
in accordance with Great Britain's contention, and through the main 
channel to the east of Pope's Folly, in accordance with the United 
States' contention, and the Commissioners considered this proposi- 
tion, but no agreement was arrived at. This settlement would have 
the elements of a compromise by mutual concession, because, 
although the United States would get the island, the fishing grounds 
and fish weirs now claimed by the United States to the east of the 
dredged channel would go to Great Britain. If the question is to 
be adjusted by compromise this would seem to be a fair basis of 
settlement. 

If, however, the question is not to be adjusted by compromise 
its settlement will depend upon the determination of the ownership 
of this island, and whether the line should be carried through the 
natural channel or the dredged channel, under a strict application 
of the recognized rules of international law. It is possible that at this 
late date it will be difficult to obtain the exact facts with respect to 
the ownership of the island in dispute prior to 1783, upon which the 
decision of that question largely depends. 

In either case, whether the question be settled by compromise or 
by determination of the strict rights of the parties, an agreement by 
convention will be necessary for its final adjustment, and in such 
agreement the location of the line, so far as agreed upon by the 
Commissioners under the Convention of 1892, might safely be 
adopted. 

FROM THE MOUTH OF THE ST. CROIX RIVER TO THE ST. LAWRENCE 

RIVER. 

This portion of the boundary as originally described in the pro- 
visional peace articles of 1782, and repeated in Article II of the 
Definitive Treaty of Peace of 1783, is divided into a northern and 



an eastern boundary. The boundary on the north is described as 
follows: 

"From the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz, that angle 
which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of Saint 
Croix River to the Highlands; along the said Highlands which 
divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Law- 
rence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the north- 
westernmost head of Connecticut River; thence down along the 
middle of that river, to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; from 
thence, by a line due west on said latitude, until it strikes the river 
Iroquois or Cataraquy. " 

The boundary on the east is described as follows: 

"East, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St. 
Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from 
its source directly north to the aforesaid Highlands, which divide 
the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall 
into the river St. Lawrence." 

Unfortunately, no map showing the location of the boundar)^ line 
as agreed upon was annexed to these treaties, and the line was not 
even marked on any maps mutually accepted by the negotiators. 
This was doubtless due to the fact that most of the region through 
which the line was to run had never been surveyed, so that very 
little was known about it and the existing maps were understood to 
be inaccurate. The exact location of the boundary, therefore, was 
left to be determined by applying the general description of the 
boundary as defined in the treaty to the topographical conditions as 
afterwards ascertained. 

When this came to be done it was found that the conditions 
assumed by the treaty description as existing were in many respects 
inaccurately stated, and disputes arose as to the location of this por- 
tion of the line throughout almost its entire length. As stated by 
President Jefferson in his annual message of October 17, 1803: 

"A further knowledge of the ground in the northeastern and 
northwestern angles of the United States has evinced that the boun- 
daries established by the Treaty of Paris between the British terri- 
tories and ours in those parts were tooimperfectly described to be 
susceptible of execution. " (Richardson's Messages and Papers of the 
Presidents, Vol. I, p. 359.) 

The first dispute to be taken up for settlement was the iden- 
tity of the River St. Croix named in the treaty, and Commissioners 
were appointed under Article V of the Treaty of 1794 "to decide 
what river is the River St. Croix intended by the treaty." It is not 
necessary at this time and in the present connection to review the 
proceedings before these Commissioners and the arguments upon 



lO 

which their decision was based. A full history of the proceedings 
and the controversy will be found in Moore on International Arbi- 
trations, volume I, pages 1-143. 

The Commissioners agreed upon the river now known as the St. 
Croix, and on October 25, 1798, rendered their decision so declaring 
and describing with particularity the course of this river to its source. 
Maps in duplicate surveyed under the direction of the Commission- 
ers, showing the river thus identified as the St. Croix, were signed 
by the Commissioners and filed with their decision. 

It will be noted that Article V of the Treaty of 1794, above 
referred to, required the Commissioners to particularize the latitude 
and longitude of the mouth and of the source of the river. Owing 
to the delays in the field work, however, difficulties arose in executing 
this requirement, and in 1798 "an explanatory article to the Treaty 
of November 19, 1794," was concluded, releasing the Commission- 
ers from particularizing the latitude and longitude of the source 
of the river, and agreeing instead that they might describe the river 
"in such other manner as they may judge expedient," and "that 
no uncertainty may hereafter exist on this subject" it was further 
agreed that the two Governments should concert measures " to erect 
and keep in repair a suitable monument at the place ascertained and 
described to be the source of the said River St. Croix." The loca- 
tion of the source of the River St. Croix on the map filed by the 
Commissioners fulfilled these requirements and a monument was 
thereafter erected on the spot indicated as the source. In thus 
determining the identity of the St. Croix and locating its source the 
location of that portion of the eastern boundary "to be drawn along 
the middle of the St. Croix " from its mouth to its source was settled, 
and at the same time the starting point was established for the rest 
of the eastern boundary, which, by the terms of the treaty, was to 
be drawn from the source of that river directly north to the "high- 
lands" at the northwest angle of Nova Scotia. 

It still remained, however, to determine what constituted the 
"highlands" and "the northwest angle of Nova Scotia" referred to 
in the treaty description, which were matters in dispute. 

By reference to the treaty it will be found that the northwest 
angle is defined as "that angle which is formed by a line drawn due 
north from the source of the St. Croix River to the Highlands" and 
the "highlands" were referred to as "the said Highlands which 
divide those rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Law- 
rence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean." 

It is evident from the description that the negotiators of the 
treaty, in defining this portion of the boundary, assumed that there 
was a well-defined ridge or height of land throughout this region 



II 

forming a watershed between the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic. 
When an attempt was made to actually locate the line, however, it 
was found that no such well-defined highlands existed at a point 
due north of the source of the St. Croix, and consequently that the 
location of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, which was to be 
formed by a line drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix 
to such "highlands," could not be accurately determined under the 
treaty description. 

This defect in the description also prevented the location of that 
portion of the northern line starting at this unlocated angle, from 
which the line was to run "along' the said Highlands * * * to 
the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River." 

Difficulties were also presented in locating the farther end of this 
section of the line on account of the uncertainty as to which of sev- 
eral branches should betaken as the "northwesternmost head of 
Connecticut River." 

Through the greater part of the region between these two points 
a height of land can be traced, dividing the waters flowing into the 
St. Lawrence from those flowing into the Atlantic, but without a 
starting point accurately fixed at either end of the line it was diffi- 
cult to determine the exact location of even that portion of the 
boundary. The boundary described in the Treaty of 1783 was 
intended to conform as near as might be to the previously estab- 
lished boundaries along the southern borders of the Provinces of 
Quebec and Nova Scotia. The southern boundary of Quebec as 
then established ran along the highlands from the Bay of Chaleurs to 
the source of the Connecticut River, but this height of land was not 
mutually regarded as accurately fulfilling the requirements of the 
treaty description, and ultimately the boundary through this entire 
region became involved in the dispute. 

The location of the line along the Connecticut River from its 
"northwesternmost head" to the 45th degree of north latitude was 
also dependent upon the determination of which of the several heads 
should be taken as the starting point, and that, as above stated, was 
one of the questions in dispute. On the part of the United States 
it was claimed that the most westerly branch, known as "Hall's 
Stream," was the one intended. It, appeared, however, that this 
branch did not join the main river until it had passed below the 
45th parallel, and therefore if this branch was selected a line along 
the 45th parallel would not strike the Connecticut River at all. For 
that reason, among others, it was urged on the part of Great Britain 
that Hall's Stream should be rejected and a more easterly branch 
selected, joining with the main part of the Connecticut River con- 
siderably farther up. 



12 

From the Connecticut River at the 45th degree of north latitude 
to the St. Lawrence the description of the boundary was: 

" From thence, by a line due west on said latitude, until it strikes 
the river Iroquois or Cataraquy." 

This section of the line was certainly described with sufficient 
accuracy to avoid any dispute as to its exact location, but here again 
difficulties arose, for it was found that the treaty line did not follow 
the old established boundary as actually laid down in 1774 between 
the Provinces of New York and Quebec, which boundary the nego- 
tiators of the treaty had intended to adopt, and ultimately, by com- 
mon consent, the treaty description was abandoned and it was agreed 
that the line should conform to the location of this old line. 

The 45th parallel had been fixed along this portion of the line as 
the boundary between the Provinces of New York and Quebec by 
a grant from James I in 1606, and again by royal proclamation in 
1763, and finally it was confirmed as the boundary on August 12, 
1768, by an order in council. 

Between the years 1771 and 1774 this portion of the line was sur- 
veyed and monumented and thereafter was known as the "Valen- 
tine and Collins line," from the names of the surveyors surveying it. 
Their survey was intended to lay the line along the 45th parallel, 
and it was supposed that this had been accomplished, and the line as 
laid out was accepted and vested interests on each side had been 
acquired in reliance upon it, and at the time of the Treaty of Peace 
it was established in full force. 

No question seems to have arisen with respect to the accuracy of 
its location until 1818, when in the autumn of that year the British 
and American surveyors, acting under the Commission appointed by 
the Treaty of Ghent for the settlement of this boundary, discovered 
that at the Connecticut River, and also at Lake Champlain, the true 
parallel lay about three-fourths of a mile south of the old line. At 
Rouses Point in Lake Champlain, which was only about one-fourth 
of a mile south of the old line and therefore north of the true parallel, 
the United States had at that time constructed a fort at a cost of 
about a million dollars, which would be thrown into Canadian terri- 
tory if the old line was abandoned as the boundary and the 45th 
parallel established instead. 

At other points also the old line varied considerably both to the 
north and south of the 45th parallel, although it was found to coin- 
cide with it at the St. Lawrence River. The difficulties occasioned 
by the location of this line were finally settled by the Webster- 
Ashburton Treaty of 1842, which adopted the old Valentine and 
Collins line, as appears below. 



13 

Such, in brief, were the chief points of dispute along this portion 
of the boundary from the St. Croix to the St. Lawrence, which de- 
veloped into the controversy known as the "Northeastern Boundary 
Question." 

NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING THE NOTHEASTERN BOUNDARY 
QUESTION AND ITS FINAL SETTLEMENT. 

A treaty was concluded in 1803 providing for the settlement of 
this question, but nothing came of it, because before it could be 
acted upon by the Senate the cession of Louisiana was confirmed, 
making it necessary to change the description of the northwestern 
boundary, which was dealt with in one of the articles of this treaty. 
The Senate advised that the treaty be ratified, omitting the article 
affected by the Louisiana cession, but Great Britain refused to assent 
to the treaty so amended. 

A further attempt was made in 1807 to arrange for the settlement 
of this question by treaty, which failed for reasons arising from 
outside questions. (For details of these negotiations see Moore on 
International Arbitrations, vol. i, pp. 68, 69, and authorities there 
cited.) 

From that time on the situation with respect to the boundary 
question remained unchanged until after the war of 181 2, when pro- 
vision was made in the Treaty of Peace signed at Ghent in 1814 for 
the appointment of Commissioners to locate the "highlands" and 
the line "along said Highlands referred to," and the "northwestern- 
most point of the Connecticut River," and to survey and lay out the 
line as described in the treaty. The exact questions to be deter- 
mined by these Commissioners are set out in Article V of the Treaty 
of Ghent, under which they were appointed, which recites that — 

"Neither that point of the highlands lying due north from the 
source of the river St. Croix, and designated in the former treaty of 
peace between the two Powers as the northwest angle of Nova Sco- 
tia, nor the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River, has yet 
been ascertained ; 

And— 

"That part of the boundary line * * * which extends from 
the source of the river St. Croix directly north to the abovementioned 
northwest angle of Nova Scotia, thence along the said highlands 
which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. 
Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean to the north- 
westernmost head of Connecticut River, thence down along the mid- 
dle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; thence 
by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois 
or Cataraquy, has not yet been surveyed.'" 



14 

It will be observed that a distinction is here made between the 
points of the line the locations of which had not been ascertained 
and the portions which had not been surveyed, and in the latter 
class the line between the Connecticut River and the St. Lawrence 
was included. The fact that the old Valentine and Collins line did 
not coincide with the 45th parallel was discovered for the first time 
by the Commissioners appointed under this article, and subsequently 
when the adjustment of that question came up for settlement this 
recital in this article, that that particular portion of the line had not 
been surveyed, was a matter of some embarrassment to the United 
States. 

The Commissioners appointed under this article met in Septem- 
ber, 1816, and surveys were made under their direction. The differ- 
ences between them, however, were found to be insurmountable 
and they finally came to a total disagreement on all points and made 
separate reports to that effect to their Governments on October 4, 
1821. 

The reports of these Commissioners and a detailed review of 
their proceedings and the positions taken by each Government on 
the several questions involved will be found in volume i of Moore 
on International Arbitrations, chapter 3, pages 65-83. 

After the failure of the Commissioners under Article V of the 
Treaty of 1814 to agree, it was decided to resort to arbitration, and 
accordingly, under the Treaty of 1827, the settlement of this question 
was submitted to the decision of the King of the Netherlands. His 
award, given on January 10, 1831, avoided a direct decision of the 
questions submitted by proposing instead a compromise line, which 
was not satisfactory to either party and was rejected by both. 

A review of the proceedings and the arguments advanced on each 
side in this arbitration will be found in volume i of Moore on Inter- 
national Arbitrations, chapter 4, pages 85-146. 

In rejecting this award the Senate in 1832 recommended that 
the President open a new negotiation with Great Britain for the 
ascertainment of the line. Further negotiations were therefore un- 
dertaken and additional surveys were made, but no agreement was 
arrived at until the Treaty of 1842, by Article I of which this portion 
of the line was agreed to and defined as follows: 

" Beginning at the monument at the source of the river St. Croix 
as designated and agreed to by the Commissioners under the fifth 
article of the treaty of 1794, between the Governments of the United 
States and Great Britain ; thence, north, following the exploring line 
run and marked by the surveyors of the two Governments in the 
years 181 7 and 1818, under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, 
to its intersection with the river St. John, and to the middle of the 



15 

channel thereof; thence, up the middle of the main channel of the 
said river St. John, to the mouth of the river St. Francis; thence, 
up the middle of the channel of the said river St. Francis, and of 
the lakes through which it flows, to the outlet of the Lake Pohe- 
nagamook ; thence, southwesterly, in a straight line, to a point on 
the northwest branch of the river St. John, which point shall be ten 
miles distant from the main branch of the St. John, in a straight line, 
and in the nearest direction; but if the said point shall be found to 
be less than seven miles from the nearest point of the summit or 
crest of the highlands that divide those rivers which empty them- 
selves into the river Saint Lawrence from those which fall into the 
river Saint John, then the said point shall be made to recede down 
the said northwest branch of the river St. John, to a point seven 
miles in a straight line from the said summit or crest; thence, in a 
straight line, in a course about south, eight degrees west, to the point 
where the parallel of latitude of 46° 25' north intersects the south- 
west branch of the St. John's; thence, southerly, by the said branch, 
to the source thereof in the highlands at the Metjarmette portage; 
thence, down along the said highlands which divide the waters which 
empty themselves into the river Saint Lawrence from those which fall 
into the Atlantic Ocean, to the head of Hall's Stream ; thence, down 
the middle of said stream, till the line thus run intersects the old line 
of boundary surveyed and marked by Valentine and Collins, pre- 
viously to the year 1774, as the 45th degree of north latitude, and 
which has been known and understood to be the line of actual 
division between the States of New York and Vermont on one side, 
and the British province of Canada on the other; and from said 
point of intersection, west, along the said dividing line, as heretofore 
known and understood, to the Iroquois or St. Lawrence River." 

In this description of the boundary as agreed upon in this treaty 
it will be observed that in the absence of "highlands" north of the 
source of the St. Croix River the line there runs north only to 
the center of the St. John River. From this point it follows along 
that river and around through certain of its tributary branches until 
it reaches the source of its southwest branch. From that point the 
description in the original treaty is followed to some extent and 
the line runs along the "highlands " " which divide the waters which 
empty themselves into the St. Lawrence River from those which 
fall into the Atlantic Ocean" to the head of Hall's Stream, which is 
the branch of the Connecticut urged from the outset on the part of 
the United States as the northwesternmost head of that river intended 
by the treaty. From there it runs down the middle of the stream 
until it intersects the Valentine and Collins line, which is referred to 
as "known and understood to be the line of actual division between 
the States of New York and Vermont on one side and the British 
province of Canada on the other," and from that point it follows 
that line to the St. Lawrence River. 

A review of the negotiations up to this point will be found in 



i6 

Webster's speech in the Senate, April 6 and 7, 1846, and the docu- 
ments referred to, which are printed in the Appendix to the Con- 
gressional Globe, first session, Twenty-ninth Congress, pages 524- 
537. See also Moore on International Arbitrations, volume i, pages 
147-161. 

This treaty was submitted to the Senate by President Tyler on 
August II, 1842. In his message of that date accompanying the 
treaty the settlement of the boundary questions under the treaty 
provisions is referred to as follows: 

"Connected with the settlement of the line of the northeastern 
boundary, so far as it respects the States of Maine and Massachusetts, 
is the continuation of that line along the highlands to the northwest- 
ernmost head of Connecticut River. Which of the sources of that 
stream is entitled to this character has been matter of controversy and 
of some interest to the State of New Hampshire. The King of the 
Netherlands decided the main branch to be the northwesternmost 
head of the Connecticut. This did not satisfy the claim of New 
Hampshire. The line agreed to in the present treaty follows the 
highlands to the head of Hall's Stream and thence down that river, 
embracing the whole claim of New Hampshire and establishing her 
title to 100,000 acres of territory more than she would have had by 
the decision of the King of the Netherlands. 

"By the treaty of 1783 the line is to proceed down the Connecti- 
cut River to the 45th degree of north latitude, and thence west by 
that parallel till it strikes the St. Lawrence. Recent examinations 
having ascertained that the line heretofore received as the true line 
of latitude between those points was erroneous, and that the cor- 
rection of this error would not only leave on the British side a con- 
siderable tract of territory heretofore supposed to belong to the 
States of Vermont and New York, but also Rouses Point, the site of 
a military work of the United States, it has been regarded as an ob- 
ject of importance not only to establish the rights and jurisdiction 
of those States up to the line to which they have been considered to 
extend, but also to comprehend Rouses Point within the territory of 
the United States. The relinquishment by the British Government 
of all the territory south of the line heretofore considered to be the 
true line has been obtained, and the consideration for this relinquish- 
ment is to inure by the provisions of the treaty to the States of 
Maine and Massachusetts. 

"The line of boundary, then, from the source of the St. Croix to 
the St. Lawrence, so far as Maine and Massachusetts are concerned, 
is fixed by their own consent and for considerations satisfactory to 
them, the chief of these considerations being the privilege of trans- 
porting the lumber and agricultural products grown and raised in 
Maine on the waters of the St. Johns and its tributaries down that 
river to the ocean free from imposition or disability. The impor- 
tance of this privilege, perpetual in its terms, to a country covered 
at present by pine forests of great value, and much of it capable 
hereafter of agricultural improvement, is not a matter upon which 
the opinion of intelligent men is likely to be divided. 



17 

"So far as New Hampshire is concerned, the treaty secures all 
that she requires, and New York and Vermont are quieted to the 
extent of their claim and occupation. The difference which would 
be made in the northern boundary of these two States by correcting 
the parallel of latitude may be seen on Tanner's maps (1836), new 
atlas, maps Nos. 6 and 9." (Richardson's Messages and Papers of 
the Presidents, Vol. IV, pp. 164, 165.) 

On August 29, 1S42, the Senate, by a vote of 39 to 9, gave its 
consent to the exchange of ratifications. 

Under this settlement of the boundary Canada and New Bruns- 
wick received a portion of the territory claimed by Maine, and in 
return certain commercial concessions along the St. John River and 
in New Brunswick were granted to the lumbering and agricultural 
interests in Maine, and the strip of land lying between the Valentine 
and Collins line and the 45th parallel, from the Connecticut River 
to the St. Lawrence, which included the fort at Rouses Point, was 
surrendered to the United States. 

Inasmuch as the acquisition of this strip did not inure to the 
benefit of Maine and Massachusetts, which had an interest in com- 
mon with Maine in the territory claimed as part of that State, it was 
agreed that the Federal Government should pay to these two States 
the sum of $300,000, to be divided between them equally, and also 
should reimburse them for expenses incurred in protecting the dis- 
puted territory and making a survey of it in 1838, and also that 
these States should receive their proportion of the "disputed terri- 
tory fund" arising from charges for cutting lumber in the disputed 
territory, which had been held by New Brunswick pending the set- 
tlement of the dispute. 

It was also provided that all grants of land made by either party 
within the disputed territory should be ratified, and in case of con- 
flicting grants an equitable adjustment of claims should be made. 

The provisions covering these points will be found in Articles 
III, IV, and V of the treaty. 

By Article VI of the Treaty of 1842 it was provided that — 

"For the purpose of running and tracing those parts of the line 
between the source of the St. Croix and the St, Lawrence River 
which will require to be run and ascertained, and for marking the 
residue of said line by proper monuments on the land, two com- 
missioners shall be appointed" — 

One by each Government ; and it was further provided that they — 

"Shall proceed to mark the line above described from the source of 
the St. Croix to the river St. John ; and shall trace on proper maps the 
dividing-line along said river and along the river St. Francis to 
the outlet of the Lake Pohenagamook ; and from the outlet of the 
said lake they shall ascertain, fix, and mark, by proper and durable 

N B 2 



i8 

monuments on the land, the line described in the first article of this 
treaty. "'" 

It was further provided that their joint report should be accompa- 
nied by maps certified by them to be true maps of the new boundary. 

The Commissioners appointed under this article were J. B. B. 
Estcourt, on the part of Great Britain, and Albert Smith, on the 
part of the United States, who carried out the work as required, and 
on June 28, 1847, their final report was completed and signed. This 
report contains a detailed description of the boundary as surveyed 
and marked by them and was accompanied by maps "faithfully con- 
structed from that survey." Their report concludes with the state- 
ment that — 

"The most perfect harmony has existed between the two Com- 
missioners from first to last and no differences have arisen between 
the undersigned in the execution of the duties intrusted to them." 

A copy of this report is printed in Volume IV of Richardson's 
Messages and Papers of the Presidents, pages 171-177. (See also 
S. Ex. Doc. No. 71, 30th Cong., ist sess.) 

A map "showing the lines as respectively claimed by the United 
States and Great Britain under the Treaty of 1783, as awarded by 
the King of the Netherlands, and as settled in 1842 by the Treaty 
of Washington" was prepared in 1843 under the direction of the 
United States Government. A copy of this map will be found in 
Moore on International Arbitrations, volume i, page 148. 

Before this report was filed certain of the original maps and 
surveys prepared to be filed with the United States Government in 
connection with it were destroyed by fire, as appears from the follow- 
ing extracts from a letter dated April 20, 1848, from Commissioner 
Smith to Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State: 

"I have to perform the painful duty of informing you that the 
maps of that line and of the adjacent country, which had been elabo- 
rately constructed by the scientific corps on the part of the United 
States, and contained upon 100 sheets of drawing paper of the 
largest size, together with the tables of the survey, have been de- 
stroyed by the conflagration of the building in which they were 
contained. 

*•!• 4* ^ ^ 4g slf 

^* •!» 'J* 'J* 1* ^^ 

"All the maps, drawings, and tables had been completed and duly 
authenticated by the Joint Commissioners, and were ready to be 
deposited with their joint report under their hands and seals in the 
archives of this Government. Of this I had the honor to inform 
you in my letter of the 24th ultimo. 

******* 

"There are tracings of the maps upon 'tissue paper,' without the 
topography, in the State of Maine, but they are not signed by the 
Commissioners. 



19 

"The fieM books of the engineers were, fortunately, not in Major 
Graham's office, and are preserved. 

"Duplicates of the maps, duly authenticated, have been placed 
in the British archives at London, which, although they have not 
the topography of the country so fully laid down upon them as it 
was upon our own, represent with equal exactness the survey of the 
boundary itself. Should it be deemed expedient by this Govern- 
ment to procure copies of them, access to those archives for that 
purpose would undoubtedly be permitted and the object accom- 
plished at small expense, and when completed these copies could be 
authenticated by the Joint Commissioners in accordance with the 
provisions of the treaty." (Richardson's Messages and Papers of 
the Presidents, Vol. IV, p. 170.) 

Apparently there are no charts of this section of the boundary 
now on file in the Department of State which have a treaty value or 
can be regarded as official reproductions of treaty charts. There is 
on file, however, a set of lithographic copies of a series which do 
not bear the signatures of the Commissioners, but are entitled, 
"Boundary under the Treaty of Washington, August 9, 1842," etc., 
and are signed by Maj. J. D. Graham, who was the topographical 
engineer of the Commission on the part of the United States. 

An examination of the records of this Commission in the British 
Foreign Office, made in August, 1906, with the assistance of Mr. 
Brant, the Foreign Office librarian, disclosed on file there a series of 
maps, bound in five volumes, entitled, "Maps of the boundary 
under the Treaty of Washington, August 9, 1842," which maps are 
indorsed : 

"Maps of the boundary between the United States and the British 
possessions of North America, as established by the Treaty of Wash- 
ington, August 9, 1842, and surveyed and marked under the direction 
of the Joint Commission appointed under the sixth article of that 
treaty. 

(Signed) "Albert Smith, 

"t/". S. Commissioner. 

"J. B. BUCKNALL ESTCOURT, Lt. CoL, 

. ' 'ZT. B. Af. Commissioner of Boundary. " 

In addition to this set of five volumes of maps there are on file in 
the British Foreign Office four bound volumes of field notes and 
surveys and tables of distances and deflections, etc., prepared sepa- 
rately by the respective Commissioners. There is also on file there 
one bound volume of maps, which bears the following indorsement: 

"This volume was used by the Commissioners in apportioning 
the islands of the St. John. The boundary they traced upon it was 
also traced upon a similar volume prepared for the American Com- 
missioner at the same time. 

"J. B. B. E." 

[J. B. BuCKNALL ESTCOURT.] 



20 

Neither a duplicate original set nor copies of the above-described 
maps and records are on file in the Department of State. 

It is reported that copies of a tabular statement showing the 
deflection angles and distances between the monuments, with the 
data procured by Lieutenant Thom, U. S. A., from a resurvey made 
in 185 1 are on file in the War Department at Washington. 

The line laid down by these Commissioners was marked with 
hollow cast-iron pillars or monuments 6 feet long, the lower half 
in the ground being 6 inches square, with projecting flanges at the 
bottom, the upper half above the ground tapering to 4 inches, and 
the top closed in the form of a pyramid. These monuments are 
marked on the north side, "J. B. Estcourt;" on the south side, 
"Albert Smith;" on the east side, "Treaty of Washington;" and 
on the west side, "Boundary, August 9, 1842." 

A section of the "Valentine and Collins" line between Bebee 
Plain and Main street of Derby Line Rock Island was resurveyed 
by a special Joint Commission in 1849 to settle a dispute as to the 
location of certain boundary monuments along that part of the line. 
The duplicate original of the joint report of these Commissioners is 
on file in the Department of State at Washington. 

A detailed description of the Valentine and Collins line will be 
found in Birdseye's Revised Statutes of New York, first edition, 
pages 2744-2746, and third edition. Volume III, page 3320. See 
also New York State Laws of 1892, chapter 678, section 5. 

THE RE-MARKING OF THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN NEW YORK AND 
CANADA, AND PROPOSALS FOR RE-MARKING THE ENTIRE LINE 
TO THE MOUTH OF THE ST. CROIX RIVER. 

An examination of the monuments along the boundary between 
the State of New York and Canada was made in 1887 under a New 
York State law passed in that year, requiring the State engineer and 
surveyor to make such examination then and every three years there- 
after. The examination under this law in 1890, at the expiration of 
the first triennial period, was participated in by an officer appointed 
by the Canadian Government. It was discovered then and in subse- 
quent examinations that very serious deterioration of the monuments 
had occurred, showing a progressive falling off in their condition 
and the necessity for repairs and renewals. The same conditions 
were reported along the rest of the boundary, wherever examinations 
were made. 

Notwithstanding these conditions, the question of re-marking this 
boundary was not raised by either Government prior to the meeting 
of the Joint High Commission in 1898, and the subject did not come 
up for consideration before that Commission. 



21 

In 1899, however, the New York State engineer and surveyor, in 
anticipation of his triennial inspection which was required to be 
made in tliat year, called the situation, so far as it related to the 
New York boundary line, to the attention of the surveyor-general 
of Canada and suggested that another joint examination be made. 
The Canadian Government expressed itself as unwilling to enter 
upon a mere examination of the monuments without arranging at 
the same time for their repair and renewal wherever necessary, and 
suggested that as this feature of the work would be out of the power 
of the State of New York or of Canada, either separately or jointly, 
without an international agreement, the question was one which 
should be arranged for through the regular diplomatic channels. 

Following up this suggestion the Canadian Privy Council adopted 
a report approved May 26, 1900, proposing that the two Govern- 
ments join in making an examination of and in re-marking where 
necessary "the whole of the southern boundary wherever it has been 
surveyed by the various commissions appointed for that purpose." 

The suggestion as to re-marking the entire boundary was not 
taken up at that time by the United States, but the Secretary of 
State, on October 29, 1900, at the request of the New York State 
engineer and surveyor, wrote to the British ambassador calling 
attention to the condition of the New York State boundary monu- 
ments and inquiring whether the Government of Canada would be 
"willing to join in having these monuments replaced and put in 
proper and first-class condition," and adding: "As no new survey is 
involved, but simply the repairing of existing monuments, it would 
not seem to require any new convention, but merely provision on 
both sides for the joint performance of the work." 

In response to this suggestion the Canadian Privy Council 
adopted a report, approved January 5, 1901, expressing their willing- 
ness to join with the United States "in the examination and restora- 
tion, where necessary, of the monuments along the line between the 
Province of Quebec and the State of New York," although it was 
noted that this was only a small part of the work proposed by the 
Canadian Government, and at the same time they renewed their 
suggestion "that the scope of the proposed joint operations be 
enlarged so as to cover the whole of the boundary line, which was 
marked under the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, from the St. Law- 
rence to the St. Croix River." 

This action of the Canadian Privy Council was communicated to 
the Secretary of State by the British ambassador in his letter of 
January 12, 1901. Meanwhile, the question of re-marking the bound- 
ary all the way to the Pacific coast had also come up for considera- 
tion, and on January 29, 1901, the Secretary of State wrote to the 



22 

British ambassador proposing arrangements for the entire boundary. 
With respect to the part now under consideration, from the St. Law- 
rence to the St. Croix, he proposed that a separate convention be 
concluded arranging for re-marking it by joint operation. His 
preference there expressed for a convention between the two Gov- 
ernments for this purpose, instead of leaving the matter to joint 
action by the several States and the Canadian Government, was 
explained on the ground that, "in this form, the arrangement would, 
I think, be more uniform and satisfactory in its working than if the 
mere restoration of impaired monuments were left to the coopera- 
tive action of the various State governments and the Government 
of the Dominion of Canada." 

In a report of the Canadian Privy Council, approved March 5, 
1901, this proposal was taken up for consideration, and after noting 
that it was in accord with the desire expressed in their reports of 
May 26, 1900, and January 5, 1901, "differing therefrom only in the 
proposition that the action necessary be provided for by a formal 
convention," it was advised that the Government of Canada accede 
to this proposition to provide for these surveys by convention. 

In June following it was suggested by the New York State engi- 
neer and surveyor that the re-marking of the New York boundary 
be undertaken without first waiting for action with respect to the 
Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont lines, and he requested that 
he be put in direct communication with the proper officials of the 
Canadian Government for the purpose of undertaking at once, con- 
jointly with them, the placing of new monuments along that bound- 
ary, as the monuments there were in such a fragile and broken 
condition that unless replaced very soon by more permanent ones 
the boundary line might be lost. 

Acting upon this suggestion the Secretary of State wrote to the 
British embassy on July 15, 1901, explaining the circumstances and 
making the following proposal: 

"While the Department still adheres to the view expressed in 
its note of January 29, 1901, in which it is gratified to see that the 
Government of the Dominion of Canada shares that a general sur- 
vey of the whole land and water boundary between the two coun- 
tries, with a view to replacing lost monuments and erecting new 
ones, as well as determining by buoys or ranges, or both, the water 
boundaries in the narrow lake channels, is most desirable, the ques- 
tion presented on the New York boundary is of so simple a nature 
that it is conceived that no difficulty will be found in carrying out, 
forthwith, the suggestion of the governor of the State. There is no 
question of settling any dispute arising from the total disappearance 
of old monuments or the insufficient marking of the line by the treaty 
commissioners. It is merely a matter of repairing existing line 
marks, as to the situation of which no question of doubt can arise. 



23 

" It is not thought that an international convention would be 
necessary to provide for painting iron monuments, cementing the 
defective masonry of stone monuments, restoring inscriptions oblit- 
erated by exposure to the elements, or, in short executing all such 
mere repairs as may be needful to enable the line marks to subserve 
the purpose for which they were set up. All this can be done by 
the joint action of the appropriate agents of the engineer's depart- 
ment of the State of New York and of the Department of the Inte- 
rior of Canada, without prejudice to any future agreement between 
the two Governments for the more effective demarcation — if need 
be — of the existing treaty boundary in that quarter." 

In response to this proposal the Canadian Privy Council adopted 
a report, approved August i6, 1901, to the effect that — 

"The proposed cooperation with the State of New York of the 
Government of the United States is quite in accord with the views 
expressed by his excellency's advisers in the minutes of council of 
May 26, 1900, and January 5, 1901, although the scope of the pro- 
posed operations is restricted to the limits of the State of New York, 
and as set forth in these minutes an inquiry into the condition of 
the whole land boundary between the United States and Canada is 
to be desired." 

It was accordingly determined that the United States be informed 
of the concurrence of Canada in the proposal of the Secretary of 
State — 

"It being understood that the agreement to the proposed coop- 
eration is without prejudice to any further agreement between the 
two Governments for the more effective demarcation of the existing 
treaty boundary in that quarter, and that while each Government 
shall pay the expenses of its commissioners and surveyors the actual 
cost of repairs shall be equally divided." 

The assent to this arrangement on the part of Canada was stated 
in a letter of August 25, 1901, from the British embassy to the 
Department of State. 

This concurrence of views having been reached, it was arranged 
that the restoration of defective monuments marking the boundary 
of New York and Canada be proceeded with under the joint direc- 
tion of the State engineer of New York and the Canadian Depart- 
ment of the Interior, without awaiting the conclusion of a more 
formal agreement between the United States and Great Britain. 

Pursuant to this arrangement the examination and re-marking of 
the boundary was undertaken by Edward A. Bond, State engineer 
and surveyor, as commissioner for the State of New York, and 
William F. King, chief astronomer of the Interior Department, com- 
missioner for Canada. Their report was signed in duplicate on 



24 

January to, 1903, and was accompanied by a detailed report of the 
field work made jointly by H. P. Willis, representing the New York 
commissioner, and C. A. Bigger, representing the Canadian com- 
missioner. These reports will be found printed in full in the annual 
report of the New York State engineer and surveyor for the year 
1902, pages 67-102. 

The description of the monuments placed by them to mark this 
boundary is given in their report as follows: 

"The monuments are 6 feet in length, the lower portion of the 
stone having an ashlar face, 12 inches square, for i foot of its length. 
From this point, for a distance of 4 feet 7^ inches, the stone tapers 
from 12 inches to 9 inches on each side, with each corner having a 
beveled face of Yi inch wide. The remaining 4^ inches at the top 
is dressed in the form of a pyramid. 

"It was decided that they should be set in concrete bases 3 feet 
square and averaging 4 feet 6 inches in the ground and 9 inches 
above the surface. One foot of the granite stone was embedded in 
the concrete. The upper surface of the concrete was given a slope 
to turn rain and on it was imprinted the lettering, as follows; 

"On the south side, 'U. S.' 

"On the north side, 'Canada.' 

"On the west side, 'Treaty, 1842.' 

"On the east side the number of the monument, with ' Renewed, 
1902. ' 

"In the case of the new monuments the word 'renewed' was 
omitted and the letter A followed the number." 

It is to be noted that this arrangement, as appears from the cor- 
respondence and proceedings above referred to when read at length, 
was understood to be merely preliminary to the making of a more 
formal agreement between the United States and Great Britain, 
such as was then contemplated but postponed on account of the 
reported necessity for immediate action along the New York bound- 
ary, and in view of this understanding and of the terms of the 
arrangement and the proviso that it was made without prejudice to 
further action by the two Governments it may be found desirable 
that some further action with respect to this portion of the boundary 
should be taken between the United States and Great Britain in 
connection with the negotiations now under consideration. An offi- 
cial copy of the report of the commissioners above referred to, which 
had never been officially communicated to the Department of State, 
has recently been obtained from the State of New York and is now 
on file in the Bureau of Rolls and Library. In connection with this 
report a copy of the survey by the New York State engineer of 
this portion of the line, showing the location of the monuments, was 
also filed in the Department of State. 



25 



ARRANGEMENTS FOR MARKING AND MAPPING THE BOUNDARY 
BETWEEN THE STATES OF VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND 
MAINE, ON THE ONE SIDE, AND CANADA, ON THE OTHER. 

It appears from the diplomatic correspondence above referred to 
that the importance of marking this portion of the boundary as soon 
as possible is recognized by the Governments on both sides of the 
line, and it also appears that they are in accord on the proposition 
that where the work to be done, as is the case with respect to this 
portion of the line, involves no disputed question as to the course 
or location of the line but requires only the restoration of original 
monuments and the erection of new ones in order to render more 
effective the boundary as already surveyed and marked, it is not 
necessary to enter into a formal convention for that purpose, and 
that an informal arrangement making provision on both sides for 
the joint performance of the work is all that is required. 

An important step in the direction of the desired result was taken 
in 1905 by the United States and Canada in causing a preliminary 
examination of this portion of the boundary to be made by repre- 
sentatives of the two Governments acting jointly. A joint report of 
this examination has been prepared by the representatives so ap- 
pointed, who were Mr. J. B. Baylor, Assistant Superintendent of the 
United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, representing the United 
States, and G. C. Rainboth, D. L. S., representing Canada. This 
report is dated February 22, 1906, and contains a general review of 
the past and present conditions of the northeastern boundary of the 
United States and Canada from the Richelieu River to the source of 
the St. Croix River, with recommendations as to what should further 
be done. It also shows in detail the present condition of each of 
the monuments inspected by them. 

This examination has shown the necessity for, and the report 
strongly urges, a survey and remonumenting of this entire boundary. 

A suggestion has already been made, through the British ambas- 
sador, to the Canadian Government that joint operations be under- 
taken for carrying out the work proposed. (See Mr. Root's notes 
to the British ambassador of January 5 and April 26, 1906.) 

It is stated in the report that there seems to bC no immediate 
necessity for a resurvey of the boundary line as defined by the water 
courses through this portion of the boundary, namely. Hall's Stream, 
the southwest branch of the St. John River, the St. Francis River, 
and the St. John River, and that it will be sufficient for the present 
to put in fresh monuments on the islands, "without fixing accurately 
the positions of the new monuments by actual surveys." These 
waterways will have to be re-marked ultimately, however, and it 



26 

would seem to be desirable that whatever is necessary to make the 
marking of the boundary complete and permanent should be done 
as soon as possible. 

The report also calls attention to the loss by fire of the charts 
and tabular statements of distances and angles prepared by Com- 
missioners Estcourt and Smith under Article VI of the Treaty of 
1842, and suggests that photographic copies of the duplicate origi- 
nals of these be obtained from the British Government. 

This report also recommends that joint action be taken by the 
Governments on either side of the line for the removal of all build- 
ings used for commercial purposes which stand on or in immediate 
proximity to the boundary line, and that the construction of any new 
buildings on the line or the use for commercial purposes of any old 
buildings so placed be prohibited. In explanation of this recom- 
mendation it is stated that the use of such buildings, particularly 
when used for saloons, stores, or factories, gives rise to customs 
frauds and other unlawful practices. 

Under the United States Revised Statutes, section 3107, it is pro- 
vided that if any store, warehouse, or other building upon or near 
the boundary line between the United States and any foreign coun- 
try is found to contain dutiable merchandise, the same, together 
with such building, shall be seized, forfeited, and disposed of ac- 
cording to law, and the building shall be forthwith taken down or 
removed. It is understood that a similar law has been enacted in 
Canada. 

It appears from the report that under existing conditions these 
laws are practically inoperative, owing to the difficulty of determin- 
ing jurisdictional questions. The boundary line as now marked is 
so imperfectly defined that it is impossible to locate it exactly with 
respect to many of the buildings so placed. In this connection it is 
further suggested by the report that a strip.30 feet wide — 15 feet on 
each side of the boundary — shall be reserved by the two Govern- 
ments exclusively for Government uses. 

It seems likely that the more complete marking of the line as 
now proposed will obviate to some extent the difficulty which this 
suggestion is designed to meet. The Canadian Government has not 
yet committed* itself on the question of this strip, and the suggestion 
requires further examination and consideration. 

By an act of Congress approved June 16, 1906, the sum of $20,000 
was appropriated "for the more effective demarcation and mapping 
of the boundary line between the United States and Canada near the 
45tli parallel from the Richelieu River to Hall's Stream, as estab- 
lished by the Commissioners of 1842-1848 under the Treaty of 
Washington of August 9, 1842." (Diplomatic and consular service 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1907.) 



27 

A similar appropriation was made on the part of Canada, and by 
an exchange of notes between the Department of State and the 
British embassy it was agreed and arranged that a commission be 
appointed to carry out the work and that each Government should 
bear the expense of its own commissioner and of his surveyor and 
assistants, and that the two Governments should bear equally the 
cost of the monuments, their transportation, and erection. (Notes 
of May 31, 1906, Mr. Townley to the Secretary of State, and of 
June 12 and July 11, 1906, Mr. Bacon to the British ambassador.) 

On July 10, 1906, Mr. O. H. Tittmann, Superintendent of the 
Coast and Geodetic Survey, was designated as Commissioner to 
represent the United States with respect to the re-marking and 
mapping of the entire line from the Richelieu River eastward to 
the waters of the St. Croix River, but in view of the limitation of the 
work to be carried on under the appropriation referred to, the super- 
vision of the demarcation of the line between the Richelieu River 
and Hall's Stream was the immediate duty assigned to him, and he 
was authorized "to arrange the details and to carry out the work 
and to sign the final report and maps as Commissioner for the United 
States jointly with the British Commissioner." 

Mr. W. F. King having been designated as Commissioner on 
the part of Great Britain, the work authorized was thereupon 
jointly undertaken by him and Mr. Tittmann, and it is understood 
to be now nearing completion. 



PART II. 



THE BOU^DAEY FEOM THE LNTEESECTION OF THE 
FOETY-FIFTH PAEALLEL A^D THE ST. LAWEENCE 
EIYEE TO THE LAKE OF THE WOODS. 



29 



THE BOUNDAKY FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE 
FORTY-FIFTH PARALLEL AND THE ST. LAWRENCE 
RIYER TO THE LAKE OF THE WOODS. 



This portion of the boundary is described in Article II of the 
provisional treaty of peace with Great Britain of 1782 and in Article 
II of the definitive treaty of peace of 1783 as follows: 

" * * * thence (from the point where the 45th degree of 
north latitude strikes the River Iroquois or Cattaraquy) along the 
middle of said river into Lake Ontario, through the middle of said 
lake until it strikes the communication by water between that lake 
and Lake Erie; thence along the middle of said communication into 
Lake Erie, through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the 
water communication between that lake and Lake Huron; thence 
along the middle of said water communication in Lake Huron; 
thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication 
between that lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior 
northward of the isle§ Royal and Phelipeaux, to the Long Lake; 
thence through the middle of said Long Lake to the water com- 
munication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake 
of the Woods; thence through the said lake to the most northwest- 
ern point thereof and from thence on a due west course to the river 
Mississippi." 

The boundary as above defined was not surveyed or charted by 
joint action of the two Governments until the appointment of Com- 
missioners for that purpose under Articles VI and VII of the Treaty 
of 1814. 

THE PORTION OF THIS LINE INCLUDED IN ARTICLE VI OF THE 

TREATY OF 1814. 

By Article VI of that treaty it was provided that two Commis- 
sioners should be appointed, one by each Government, to designate 
the boundary through the Great Lakes "to the water communica- 
tion between Lake Huron and Lake Superior," and by Article VII it 
was provided that the same Commissioners, after they had executed 
the duties assigned to them under Article VI, should determine the 
boundary "from the water communication between Lake Huron and 
Lake Superior to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the 
Woods." 

31 



32 



Messrs. Peter B. Porter and Anthony Barclay were appointed 
Commissioners, respectively, on the part of the United States and 
Great Britain under these articles. Article VI in full, with the 
exception of a provision covering the possibility of a disagreement 
which did not occur, is as follows: 

"Whereas by the former treaty of peace that portion of the bound- 
ary of the United States from the point where the forty-fifth de- 
gree of north latitude strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy to the 
Lake Superior, was declared to be 'along the middle of said river 
into Lake Ontario, through the middle of said lake, until it strikes 
the communication by water between that lake and Lake Erie, 
thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, 
through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water commu- 
nication into the Lake Huron, thence through the middle of said lake 
to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior;' 
and whereas doubts have arisen what was the middle of the said 
river, lakes and water communications, a'nd whether certain islands 
lying in the same were within the dominions of His Britannic Maj- 
esty or of the United States: In order, therefore, finally to decide 
these doubts, they shall be referred to two Commissioners, to be 
appointed, sworn and authorized to act exactly in the manner di- 
rected with respect to those mentioned in the next preceding article, 
unless otherwise specified in this present article. The said Com- 
missioners shall meet, in the first instance, at Albany, in the State 
of New York, and shall have power to adjourn to such other place 
or places as they shall think fit. The said Commissioners shall, by 
a report or declaration, under their hands and seals, designate the 
boundary through the said river, lakes and water communications, 
and decide to which of the two contracting parties the several islands 
lying within the said rivers, lakes and water communications, do 
respectively belong, in conformity with the true intent of the said 
treaty of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three. And both 
parties agree to consider such designation and decision as final and 
conclusive. " 

The Commissioners arrived at an agreement with respect to the 
entire portion of the line included in Article VI and the ownership 
of the several islands lying along the boundary waters, and their 
joint report was completed and signed on the i8th day of June, 
1822., A copy of their report in full is printed in Treaties in Force, 
1904, page 305. 

This decision describes in detail the course of the line from the 
starting point at St. Regis on the St. Lawrence River to the head 
of St. Joseph's Island at the foot of the Neebish Rapids in the water 
cornmunication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior, which point 
is indicated by the Commissioners as the " termination of the bound- 
ary directed to be run by the sixth article of the Treaty of Ghent." 

In determining the location of the line with respect to the islands 



-1 1 



lying in its course, the Commissioners adopted the invariable rule 
that the boundary should be a water line throughout, thus avoiding 
the division of any island, and their decision declares that — 

"all the islands lying in the rivers, lakes and water communications, 
between the before-described boundary-line and the adjacent shores 
of Upper Canada, do, and each of them does, belong to His Britannic 
Majesty, and that all the islands lying in the rivers, lakes and water 
communications, between the said boundary-line and the adjacent 
shores of the United States, or their territories, do, and each of them 
does, belong to the United States of America, in conformity with the 
true intent of the second article of the said treaty of 1783, and of 
the sixth article of the treaty of Ghent." 

In addition to describing the line the decision also declares that 
the line — 

"is more clearly indicated on a series of maps accompanying this 
report, exhibiting correct surveys and delineations of all the rivers, 
lakes, water communications and islands, embraced by the sixth 
article of the treaty of Ghent, by a black line shaded on the British 
side with red, and on the American side with blue; and each sheet 
of which series of maps is identified by a certificate, subscribed by 
the Commissioners, and by the two principal surveyors employed 
by them." 

The duplicate original set of this series of maps belonging to the 
United States is on file in the Department of State at Washington. 
It is reported that the other duplicate original set is in the possession 
of the British Government, and a copy made by the Ordinance Office 
in London is on file at Ottawa. A reproduction of these maps will 
be found in volume 6 of Moore's International Arbitrations. The 
series in the Department of State, and as reproduced, consists of 
twenty-five maps, each of which, with the exception of maps num- 
bered II and 17, is signed by the two Commissioners and the two 
principal surveyors. All the maps of this series, with the exception 
of Nos. II, 17, and 22, bear the following certification: 

"We certify this to be a true map of part of the boundary desig- 
nated by the sixth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, from actual survey 
by order of the Board." 

No certification appears on Map No. 22, which shows the bound- 
ary through Lake St. Clair, but it apparently was signed by the 
Commissioners and the surveyors. 

Map No. II shows the boundary line through Lake Ontario, and 
is indorsed : 

"Copied from the survey made in the years 1815-16-17 by Cap- 
tain H. F. W. Owen of H. B. Majesty's Royal Navy." 

N B T, 



34 

The next two succeeding maps in the series, which are signed 
and certified by the Commissioners, show the line at each end of 
Lake Ontario. 

Map No. 17 shows the line through Lake Erie from the Niagara 
River to the Detroit River, and is indorsed: 

"Lake Erie. That part west of Points Pele and Sandusky, in- 
cluding all the islands, is reduced from the actual surveys made by 
order of the Commissioners. The other parts of the lake (except the 
entrance into the Niagara River) are reduced from such printed maps 
as are supposed to be most accurate." 

The maps next preceding and following No. 17 in the series show 
the lir^e as it enters Lake Erie at either end, and both of these maps 
are signed and certified by the Commissioners. 

It appears, therefore, that the line through the central portion of 
Lakes Ontario and Erie is not marked on charts authenticated by the 
signatures of the Commissioners, and in view of the statement in 
their report that "each sheet of the series is identified by a certificate 
subscribed by the Commissioners," etc., it would seem that these 
maps should not be regarded as properly a part of the series. 

In a report made to the Secretary of State by Mr. Adee, the Sec- 
ond Assistant Secretary, dated February 21, 1896, on the northern 
boundary question, the following statement is made with respect to 
the boundary in Lakes Erie and Ontario: 

"The original chart of Lake Erie, like that of Ontario, is un- 
signed by the Commissioners. It may therefore be properly said 
that as to the main body of those two lakes there does not exist a 
charting of the boundary having the force and value of a treat}^" 

From the foregoing review of the work of the Commissioners 
under the sixth article of the Treaty of 1814 it appears that the en- 
tire portion of the boundary included in that article, extending from 
the point of intersection of the 45th parallel with the St. Lawrence 
River to the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake 
Superior, is defined and described in detail under treaty authority 
in the report of the Commissioners, and, with the exception of the 
portion through the main body of Lakes Ontario and Erie, and possi- 
bly also Lake St. Clair, is surveyed and marked upon charts having 
the international force and effect of a treaty. The question of the 
accuracy of these charts and the actual physical demarcation of 
the boundary as located by them remains to be considered and is 
dealt with elsewhere in this report. 

The field notes of the surveys of this Commission do not appear 
to have been filed in the Department of State. The only official 
records of the work of this Commission to be found there are a 



35 

manuscript journal of the proceedings of the Commission and the 
final award of the Commissioners, with the boundary maps forming 
part of it. 

A complete review of the proceedings of the Commissioners un- 
der the sixth article of the Treaty of Ghent will be found in Moore's 
International Arbitrations, volume i, pages 162-170. 

THE LINE FROM THE FOOT OF NEEBISH RAPIDS TO THE MOST 
NORTHWESTERN POINT OF THE LAKE OF THE WOODS, INCLUDED 
IN ARTICLE VII OF THE TREATY OF 1S14. 

Messrs. Porter and Barclay having executed the duties assigned 
to them as Commissioners under the sixth article of the Treaty of 
Ghent, and having concluded their proceedings under that article 
by their report of June 18, 1822, thereupon proceeded under Article 
VII of that treaty — 

"To fix and determine according to the true intent of the said 
Treaty of Peace of one thousand seven hundred and eighty three, 
that part of the boundary between the dominions of the two Powers, 
which extends from the water communication between Lake Huron 
and Lake Superior to the most North Western point of the Lake of 
the Woods; — to decide to which of the two Parties the several 
Islands lying in the Lake, water communications, and Rivers form- 
ing the said boundary do respectively belong in conformity with the 
true intent of the said Treaty of Peace of one thousand seven hun- 
dred and eighty three and to cause such parts of the said boundary 
as require it to be surveyed and marked." 

It was also provided that the — 

"Commissioners shall by a report or declaration under their 
hands and seals designate the boundary aforesaid, state their deci- 
sion on the points thus referred to them, and particularize the Lati- 
tude and Longitude of the most North Western point of the Lake 
of the Woods, and of such other-parts of the said boundary as they 
may deem proper. And both parties agree to consider such desig- 
nation and decision as final and conclusive." 

As above stated, the Commissioners under the sixth article had 
carried the line to a point in the St. Mary's River just below the foot 
of Neebish Rapids, and owing to the entire absence of any reference 
to the continuation of the line through the connecting waters between 
Lakes Huron and Superior in the description of the boundary in the 
treaties of 1782 and 1783, a serious question presented itself as to 
the jurisdiction of the Commissioners under Article VII to continue 
the line through the St. Mary's River. Under Article VI the Com- 
missioners were empowered to designate the boundary only "/f the 
water communication between that lake (Huron) and Lake Superior, " 



36 

and under Article VII they were authorized to determine the bound- 
ary 'y"r(?w the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake 
Superior," etc., and they were required to designate the boundary 
"in conformity with," in the one case, and "according to," in the 
other, the true intent of the Treaty of 1783, which, as above stated, 
contained no reference to the course of the line through this par- 
ticular waterway. The omission was the more noticeable because 
the boundary was particularly described in that treaty as running 
along the middle of the waterways between Lakes Ontario and Erie, 
and between Lakes Erie and Huron. The Commissioners decided, 
however, that this omission was a mere inadvertence, and they inter- 
preted the true intent of the treaty to be that the line was to con- 
tinue through the middle of this water communication from Lake 
Huron to Lake Superior. 

Starting, therefore, from the point where they terminated the 
line under the sixth article, they proceeded to carry the boundary 
line through the St. Mary's River, but at the very outset they 
encountered a divergence of views as to its location around St._^ 
George or Sugar Island, which lies almost immediately above the 
starting point. Each Commissioner insisted, for reasons which 
need not be reviewed here, that the line should leave this island on 
his own side of the boundary. Various compromises were offered 
on each side, but they were unacceptable, and, although some adjust- 
ment of the question would probably have been arrived at if this had 
been the only point in dispute, it was found that owing to irrecon- 
cilable differences as to another portion of the line a final disagree- 
ment was inevitable, and it was decided to leave this question open 
for future adjustment. 

The Commissioners agreed, however, on the course of the bound- 
ary from above St. George or Sugar Island through the Sault Ste. 
Marie and across Lake Superior to a point north of Isle Royal in 
that lake. The portion of the boundary thus agreed upon was laid 
down by them on maps surveyed under their direction, and was 
marked by a black line shaded on the British side with red and on 
the American side with blue. 

Their agreement as to this portion of the line was entered in their 
journal on October 23, 1826, as follows: 

"That, in the opinion of the commissioners, the following de- 
scribed line, which is more clearly indicated by a series of maps 
prepared by the surveyors, and now on the files of this board, by a 
line of black ink, shaded on the British side with red, and on the 
American side with blue, is, so far as the same extends, the true 
boundary intended by the treaties of 1783 and 1814; that is to say, 
beginning at a point in the middle of St. Mary's river, about one 
mile above the head of St. George's or Sugar Island, and running 



^1 

thence, westerly, through the middle of said river, passing between 
the groups of islands and rocks which lie on the north side, and those 
which lie on the south side of the Sault de Ste. Marie, as exhibited 
on the maps; thence, through the middle of said river, between 
points Iroquois and Gros Cap, which are situated on the opposite 
main shores, at the head of the river St. Mary's, and at the entrance 
into Lake Superior; thence, in a straight line, through Lake Superior, 
passing a little to the south of isle Cariboeuf, to a point in said lake, 
one hundred yards to the north and east of a small island named on 
the map Chapeau, and lying opposite and near to the northeastern 
point of isle Royale." 

From the point above Isle Royal in Lake Superior to a point at 
the foot of Chaudiere Falls in Lac la Pluie, or Rainy Lake, the 
Commissioners were unable to agree as to the location of the line. 
The treaty descriptions required that the line, after passing north 
of Isles Royal and Phelippeaux in Lake Superior, should go "to 
Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake to the 
water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to 
the said Lake of the Woods." It was found that there was no lake 
in that region known as Long Lake, but that there were four sepa- 
rate routes which the line might follow, any one of which, in the 
absence of the others, would have been regarded as sufficiently ful- 
filling the requirements of the treaty description. The northern- 
most of these was through the River Kamanistiquia, for which the 
American Commissioner contended. The southernmost one, which 
the British Commissioner selected, was through Fond du Lac or St. 
Louis River. The two intermediate ones were the Grand Portage 
route and the Pigeon River route, which latter was a few miles to 
the north of the other. 

From the foot of Chaudiere Falls to the most northwestern point 
of the Lake of the Woods the Commissioners agreed upon the loca- 
tion of the line, which they marked as before on the maps surveyed 
and prepared under their direction. A detailed description of the 
portions thus agreed upon is set out in the records of their proceed- 
ings as follows: 

"Beginning at a point in Lac La Pluie, close north of island 
marked No. i, lying below the Chaudiere falls of lake Namecan; 
thence down this channel, between the islets marked No. 2 and No. 
3; thence, down the middle of said channel, into Lac La Pluie, 
westward of island No. 4; thence, through the said lake, close to 
the south point of island No. 5 ; thence, through the middle of said 
lake, north of island No. 6, and south of island No. 7; thence 
through the middle of said lake, to the north of islet No. 8, and 
south of islands No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, and between islands No. 12 
and No. 13; thence, south of islands No. 14 and No. 15; thence, 
through the middle of said lake, north of a group of islands. No. 
16; thence, south of a group of rocks. No. 17; thence, south of a 
group of islets, No. 18; thence, north of an islet. No. 19; thence, 



38 

through the middle of said lake, to the south of island No. 20, and 
all its contiguous islets; thence, south of island No. 21, and mid- 
way between islands No. 22 and No. 23; thence, southwest of island 
No. 24; thence, north of island No. 25; thence, through tjie middle 
of said lake, to its sortie^ which is the head of the Riviere La Pluie; 
thence, down the middle of said river, to the Chaudiere falls, and 
having a portage on each side ; thence, down the middle of said falls 
and river, passing close south of islet No. 26; thence, down the 
middle of said Riviere La Pluie, and passing north of islands. No. 
27, No. 28, No. 29 and No. 30; thence, clown the middle of said river, 
passing west of island No. 31; thence, east of island No. 32; thence, 
down the middle of said river, and of the Manitou rapid, and passing 
south of No. Tf2> '■> thence, down the middle of said river, and the Long 
Sault rapid, north of island No. 34, and south of islets No. 35, No. 
36, and No. 37 ; thence, down the middle of said river, passing south of 
island No. 38; thence, down the middle of said river, to its entrance 
between the main land and Great Sand Island, into the Lake of the 
Woods; thence, by a direct line to a point in said lake, one hundred 
yards east of the most eastern point of island No. i ; thence, north- 
westward, passing south of islands No. 2 and No. 3; thence, north- 
westward of island No. 4, and southwestward of islands No. 5 and 
No. 6; thence, northward of island No. 7, and southward of islands 
No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, and No. 11 ; thence, through the middle of the 
waters of this bay, to the northwest extremity of the same, being 
the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods. And from 
a monument erected in this bay, on the nearest firm ground to the 
above northwest extremity of said bay, the courses and distances 
are as follows, viz: ist. N., 56° W., 156. 5^^ feet; 2d. N.,6°W., 
86i>^ feet; 3d. N., 28° W., 615.4 feet; 4th. N., 27° 10' W., 495.4 
feet; 5th. N., 5° 10' E., 1,3223^ feet; 6th. N., 7° 45' W., 493 feet; 
the variation being 12° east. The termination of this 6th or last 
course and distance, being the above said most northwestern point 
of the Lake of the Woods, as designated by the 7th article of the 
treaty of Ghent ; and being in the latitude forty-nine degrees twenty- 
three minutes and fifty-five seconds north of the equator; and in 
longitude, ninety-five degrees fourteen minutes and thirty-eight 
seconds west from the observatory at Greenwich." 

Having disagreed, as above described, on certain portions of the 
line, the Commissioners did not unite in a joint report, but each 
filed a separate report, and in such reports will be found detailed 
descriptions of the portions of the line proposed by them upon which 
they did not agree and the grounds upon which they based their 
respective positions. (H. R. Ex. Doc. No. 451, 25th Cong., 2dsess.) 

The Commissioners had their final meeting on December 24, 
1827, and, after exchanging their reports, adjourned sine die. 

The charts prepared by direction of the Commissioners under 
Article VII of this treaty comprise two separate sets, one of which 
consists of twenty-six charts numbered I to XXVI, inclusive, each 
one of which is certified to be — 

"A true map of part of the survey under the seventh article of 
the Treaty of Ghent, made by order of the Commissioners." 



39 

and is signed by the Commissioners, Barclay and Porter. On this 
set the boundary line is marked, so far as the Commissioners agreed 
upon it, by a black line shaded red on the British side and blue on 
the American side, and the charts showing the line so agreed upon 
were later adopted as boundary maps under the Webster-Ashburton 
Treaty of 1842. With this series there are two additional unnumbered 
charts, which are indorsed as copies of original surveys prepared 
and filed — 

"to exhibit the course of a certain line described by the British 
Commissioner for a proposed boundary, as set forth in the journal 
of the Board under date of the 23rd day of October, 1826." 

These charts are attached as subcharts to Charts Nos. XIV and 
XV of this series and bear the signatures of the Commissioners, but 
the line referred to in the indorsement as proposed by the British 
Commissioner appears only on the latter one, which shows Lac la 
Croix on a larger scale than in the main Chart No. XV, to which it 
is annexed. The proposed line shown on this subchart was after- 
wards adopted by Webster and Ashburton. 

The other series consists of a set of charts numbered i to 8, 
inclusive, each of which is certified to be — 

"A true map of part of the survey under the seventh article of 
the Treaty of Ghent, made by order of the Commissioners." 

and is signed by Commissioners Porter and Barclay. 

The first two charts of this set cover the section from Neebish 
Rapids to Lake Superior, and the rest cover the section from Isle 
Royal in Lake Superior to and through the water communications 
to the westward of Lake Superior, as far as Lake Namecan imme- 
diately below Chaudiere Falls. The line agreed upon by Webster 
and Ashburton was afterwards marked by them on Chart No. i of this 
set, which was also signed by them and now forms part of the set 
of boundary maps having an authoritative value under the Webster- 
Ashburton Treaty. 

Chart No. 2 of this set shows the line through the St. Mary's 
River, so far as agreed upon by the Commissioners, and consequently 
is one of the boundary maps adopted under the Webster-Ashburton 
Treaty. 

On Charts Nos. 3 and 6 of this set a line is shown at points where 
the Commissioners disagreed, and as these particular charts were 
not afterwards adopted by Webster and Ashburton in the final 
adjustment of the boundary, the linq as shown on them has no 
authoritative value. No line is shown on the remaining charts of 
this series. 



40 

From the foregoing review of the work of the Commissioners 
under the seventh article of the Treaty of 1814 it appears that the 
entire portion of the boundary included in that article, extending 
from the point in the St. Mary's River between Lakes Huron and 
Superior, where the line under the sixth article terminated, to the 
most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, was surveyed 
and charted under the direction of the Commissioners; that the por- 
tions of this line upon which they agreed — viz, (i) from a point above 
St. George or Sugar Island in the St. Mary's River to a point just 
north of Isle Royal in Lake Superior, and (2) from a point at the 
foot of Chaudiere Falls in Rainy Lake to the most nortwestern point 
of the Lake of the Woods — were marked by them upon the charts of 
the Commission, and were defined and described in detail in the 
records of the proceedings of the Commission; but the Commission- 
ers having failed to agree with respect to certain portions of the line, 
and no joint report having been rendered by them, their decision 
as to the location of the portions agreed upon was not regarded as 
final and conclusive under the terms of Article VII of the treaty, 
which provided that in the event of the Commissioners differing 
their reports should be referred to some friendly sovereign or state 
to decide on such differences. 

A complete report of the proceedings of the Commissioners under 
the seventh article of the Treaty of Ghent will be found in Moore's 
International Arbitrations, volume i, pages 171-191. 

THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS BOUNDARY BY THE WEBSTER- 
ASHBURTON TREATY OF 1842. 

Notwithstanding the provision in Article VII of the Treaty of 
1814 for arbitration in case of a disagreement by the Commissioners, 
no action was taken by either Government in that direction. The 
northeastern boundary question, which at that time was of much 
greater importance than the northwestern boundary question, had 
recently been referred to arbitration and the decision rendered on 
January 10, 1831, had proved unsatisfactory to both sides and was 
not accepted by either. 

With respect to the boundary included in Article VII of the 
Treaty of 1814, apparently no discussion took place between the 
two Governments, after the adjournment of the Commissioners in 
1827, until 1839, in which year, and in the following year, this 
boundary question formed the subject of diplomatic correspondence, 
which finally led to the negotiations between Webster and Ashbur- 
ton, resulting in the settlement of this and other portions of the 
northern boundary by the Treaty of 1842. 



41 

In Article II of that treaty the portion of the boundary included 
in Article VII of the Treaty of Ghent is agreed upon as follows: 

" It is moreover agreed, that from the place where the joint Com- 
missioners terminated their labors under the sixth article of the 
treaty of Ghent, to wit: at a point in the Neebish Channel, near 
Muddy Lake, the line shall run into and along the ship channel be- 
tween Saint Joseph and St. Tammany Islands, to the division of the 
channel at or near the head of St. Joseph's Island; thence, turning 
eastwardly and northwardly, around the lower end of St. George's 
or Sugar Island, and following the middle of the channel which 
divides St. George's from St. Joseph's Island; thence, up the east 
Neebish channel, nearest to St. George's Island, through the middle 
of Lake George; — thence west of Jonas' Island, into St. Mary's 
River to a point in the middle of that river, about one mile above 
St. George's or Sugar Island, so as to appropriate and assign the 
said Island to the United States; thence, adopting the line traced 
on the maps by the Commissioners, thro' the river St. Mary and 
Lake Superior, to a point north of He Royale in said Lake, one 
hundred yards to the north and east of He Chapeau, which last 
mentioned Island lies near the northeastern point of He Royale, 
where the line marked by the Commissioners terminates; and from 
the last mentioned point, southwesterly, through the middle of the 
Sound between He Royale and the northwestern mainland, to the 
mouth of Pigeon river, and up the said river to, and through, 
the north and south Fowl Lakes, to the Lakes of the height of land 
between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods; thence, along 
the water-communication to Lake Saisaginaga, and through that 
Lake; thence, to and through Cypress Lake, Lac du Bois Blanc, Lac 
la Croix, Little Vermilion Lake, and Lake Namecan, and through 
the several smaller lakes, straits, or streams, connecting the lakes 
here mentioned, to that point in Lac la Pluie, or Rainy Lake, at 
the Chaudiere Falls, from which the Commissioners traced the line 
to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods — thence, 
along the said line, to the said most northwestern point, being 
in latitude 49° 23' 55" north, and in longitude 95° 14' 38" west from 
the Observatory at Greenwich; thence, according to existing treat- 
ies, due south to its intersection with the 49th parallel of north lati- 
tude, and along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains. It being 
understood that all the water-communications and all the usual por- 
tages along the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods; 
and also Grand Portage, from the shore of Lake Superior to the 
Pigeon river, as now actually used, shall be free and open to the use 
of the citizens and subjects of both countries." 

It will be observed that by this agreement so much of the line 
as the Commissioners under Article VII of the Treaty of 1814 had 
agreed upon was adopted as the boundary, and that their disagree- 
ment as to the location of the line around St. George's or Sugar 
Island was settled by running the line there "so as to appropriate 
and assign the said island to the United States. " The other point of 



42 

disagreement between the Commissioners, involving the location 
of the line from Isle Royal in Lake Superior to Chaudiere Falls in 
Rainy Lake, was settled by a compromise, avoiding the extreme 
northerly course proposed by the American Commissioner and the 
extreme southerly course proposed by the British Commissioner, 
and instead carrying the line through the Pigeon River route, which 
lay about midway between. The latitude and longitude of the most 
northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods as fixed by the Com- 
missioners was accepted under this agreement, and has since been 
monumented. 

In addition to adopting the portions of the line agreed upon by 
the Commissioners under Article VII of the Treaty of Ghent, thus 
giving the charts upon which the line had been delineated by those 
Commissioners a treaty value, the remaining portions of the line 
agreed upon by Webster and Ashburton were marked in ink by them 
on the original charts prepared by those Commissioners, covering 
such portions of the boundary. Each of the charts upon which the 
line was so marked was indorsed, apparently in Webster's hand- 
writing: "Map of boundary agreed to by treaty, August 9, 1842," 
which indorsement was signed by both Webster and Ashburton, and 
along the line so marked by them on such charts was written: 
"Boundary under the Treaty of Washington." 

In 1869 copies of charts Nos. XIII, XIV (with subchart attached), 
XV (with subchart attached), XVI, and XVIII of this series, certified 
to be correct copies by Col. Henry James, of the Royal Engineers,, 
under date of February 5, 1869, were obtained from the British 
Government for the purpose of replacing the corresponding charts 
which were then missing from the American set. These certified 
copies, however, as has since appeared, were not reproductions of 
the British original treaty charts, but of another set of charts on file 
in the Foreign Office marked "incomplete set," the charts compris- 
ing which are apparently exact duplicates of the American treaty 
charts except that the boundary line as laid down in 1842 by Web- 
ster and Ashburton is not marked on them and they do not bear 
their signatures. The certified copies from this set, therefore, do 
not show the boundary line and have no treaty value. 

When the question of the demarcation of this portion of the 
boundary came up for consideration before the Joint High Com- 
mission in 1898 Sir Richard Cartwright, one of the Canadian Com- 
missioners, produced a series of maps indicating a continuous 
boundary line, marked in black, through the connecting waters all 
the way from Lake Superior to Chaudiere Falls. These maps, he 
stated, had been copied from the originals in London by the Ordi- 
nance Office there. On them was shown the indorsement : "Map of 



43 

Boundary. Agreed to by Treaty August 9, 1842. (Signed) Ash- 
burton. Daniel Webster." The signatures of Barclay and Porter, 
Commissioners under the Treaty of Ghent, were also shown. Mr. 
Kasson, who was the American member of the Joint High Com- 
mission subcommittee on the boundary question, reported the ex- 
istence of these maps to the Department of State in a letter to Mr. 
Adee, dated October 5, 1898, in which he says: 

"I am forced to believe that duplicates of these maps, with the 
original certificates of the negotiators of the Treaty of 1842, must 
exist somewhere in the Department of State." 

Prior to that time for a number of years the fact that Webster 
and Ashburton had marked on maps any portion of the line west of 
Lake Superior had been lost sight of in the absence of , any maps 
showing this portion of the line in the series filed with the Treaty of 
1842 in the Department of State, and it had been assumed that no 
such maps existed. (See Mr. Adee's report of February 21, 1896, 
above referred to.) 

Upon Mr. Kasson's report, however, a search was instituted and 
three of the missing maps — Nos. XIII, XIV (with an unnumbered sub- 
map attached), and XV (also with an unnumbered submap attached) 
of the series — were discovered in the Library of Congress, but the 
other two missing originals of the series (Nos. XVI and XVIII) 
were not with them and have not yet been found. 

The boundary as shown on the original charts now on file in the 
Department of State is incomplete west of Lake Superior, from Lac 
la Croix to the Chaudiere Falls in Rainy Lake. 

An examination of the original charts filed with this treaty in the 
British Foreign Office was made there in August, 1906, and with 
the assistance of Mr. Brant, the Foreign Office Librarian, they were 
compared in detail with the reproductions of the United States' 
original set as published in the sixth volume of Moore on Interna- 
tional Arbitrations. The examination disclosed the fact that the 
British set is actually the original set prepared and filed by Messrs. 
Porter and Barclay, the Commissioners under Article VII of the 
Treaty of Ghent, whereas the charts of the American set, although 
signed by Messrs. Porter and Barclay, are not identical in all respects 
with the original set, and bear a certificate to the effect that they are 
true copies of the originals, which certificate does not appear on the 
British set. The form of the certificate referred to will be found in 
the reproductions of the American set as printed in the sixth volume 
of Moore's Arbitrations, above referred to. The corresponding 
charts of both of these sets are signed by Webster and Ashburton 



44 

and the boundary line as marked on certain of the charts by them, 
and as adopted by them on the others where the line was agreed 
upon by Messrs. Porter and Barclay, corresponds iff all essential 
particulars. The chief difference between the two sets is that on 
some of the British set triangulation lines are shown and distances 
given and a scale of yards and geographical and statute miles ap- 
pears, and on almost every chart details, such as the names of points 
and islands, are given, none of which features appear on the corre- 
sponding charts of the American set. 

Inasmuch as the boundary was marked by Webster and Ashbur- 
ton on the two British original charts, of which the corresponding 
copies are still missing in the American set, it may safely be assumed 
that the boundary line was marked on them also. It appears, there- 
fore, that the series of charts adopted by and forming part of the 
Treaty of 1842 show a complete delineation of the boundary as 
agreed upon in that treaty, covering the entire distance included 
under the seventh article of the Treaty of 1814. It is to be observed, 
however, that the boundary as agreed upon in the Treaty of 1842 
was a water line throughout, so far as possible, and it is understood 
that its course is not shown on the charts wherever it is necessary 
for the line to cross the land, as in the case of the height of land 
referred to in Article II and across intervening portages between 
lakes having no water communication, which is reported to be the 
case in three instances. 

Since the surveys made under the seventh article of the Treaty 
of 1814 the line from Pigeon River to the Lake of the Woods has 
never been surveyed or charted by joint action of the two Govern- 
ments, and the actual location of the boundary has never been 
marked by monuments. (Note of January 29, 1901, from Secretary 
Hay to Lord Pauncefote.) A more complete delineation of this line, 
therefore, is necessary, both on maps and along the course of the 
boundary itself, and in order to perfect this portion of the boundary 
provision should be made for jointly surveying and monumenting 
the line throughout its entire course. 

In a report made by Hamilton Fish when Secretary of State, 
dated February 23, 1877, it is stated that at that time the line from 
the Atlantic coast to the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods 
had been surveyed and adjusted. (S. Ex. Doc. 41, 44th Cong., 2d 
sess.) This statement was erroneous so far as it concerns the line 
from Pigeon River to the Lake of the Woods, with respect to which 
the situation is as above stated, (H. Rept. 1310, 54th Cong., ist 
sess. 



45 



SEPARATE SURVEY BY CANADA, 1896. 

A statement is quoted in Moore's International Arbitrations, vol- 
ume I, page 236, with the apparent authority of the Minnesota 
Historical Society, to the effect that — 

"The Canadian Government has not waited for a joint survey 
to inform itself concerning the actual condition of the boundary, 
but has quietly sent out a party of surveyors, at its own expense, to 
trace the line from Pigeon Point to the Lake of the Woods. The 
work was ordered by the Commissioner on International Bounda- 
ries, and is in charge of A. J. Brabazon." 

A report, dated February i, 1897, was made by Mr. A. J. Braba- 
zon to W. F. King, Canadian Chief Astronomer, on the international 
boundary from Pigeon River to the Chaudiere Falls, a copy of which 
has been procured and is now on file in the Department of State. 
In this report he states as a result of his examination that all the 
details connected with this portion of the boundary are clearly set 
forth in the report of the Commissioners under the seventh article 
of the Treaty of 1814, and are shown on the maps of 1842 signed by 
Webster and Ashburton, except with respect to the description of 
the portages along this portion of the boundary, which he supplies 
in detail in this report. In regard to these portages he says: 

"Of the thirty-one portages described in the report of the Com- 
missioners under Article VII of the Treaty of Ghent, as proposed by 
the British Commissioner to be parts of the boundary between 
North Fowl and Rainy lakes, four cross islands, three are between 
lakes unconnected by water, one crosses a very indefinite creek, and 
twenty-three are along unnavigable portions of streams. It will be 
seen that of these streams fourteen will be on the Canadian and nine 
on the American side of the boundary." 

He then proceeds to designate the side of the boundary upon 
whicli the respective streams referred to would be placed, accord- 
ing to his understanding of its location. 

There is no warrant in the description of the boundary as agreed 
upon in the treaty or in the course as indicated by the line drawn 
by Webster and Ashburton on the charts, so far as appears, for the 
statement that the boundary should follow the portages between 
lakes which are connected by water communications. In the cases 
of the height of land referred to in the treaty, and of the three por- 
tages between lakes unconnected by water, the boundary must nec- 
essarily take a land course. But to follow portages where water 
communications exist would be inconsistent not only with the rule 
that the line should be invariably a water line, which, as above 



46 

shown, was adopted by Commissioners Porter and Barclay with 
respect to the boundary under the sixth article, but also with the 
evident intent of Webster and Ashburton that the line agreed upon 
by them should be a water line, as indicated by the language used 
in describing the line in Article II of this treaty. This part of the 
line is described as running — 

"to the mouth of Pigeon river, and up the said river to and 
through, the north and south Fowl Lakes, to the Lakes of the 
height of land between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods; 
thence, along the water-communication to Lake Saisaginaga, and 
through that Lake; thence, to and through Cypress Lake, Lac du 
Bois Blanc, Lac la Croix, Little Vermilion Lake, and Lake Name- 
can, and through the several smaller lakes, straits, or streams, con- 
necting the lakes here mentioned'', etc. 

In the absence of the missing original charts upon which the 
Webster and Ashburton line is supposed to be drawn, it is impossible 
to tell just what that line on those charts will show in this respect, 
but without positive evidence to the contrary it would be unsafe to 
assume that the line departed from the waterways in any instance 
where there was a waterway which it might follow. 

Brabazon's report indicates that the line described by him is the 
one "proposed by the British Commissioner under Article VII of 
the Treaty of Ghent, and he assumes that this line was adopted by 
Webster and Ashburton, which, however, is not shown to be the 
case, and this conclusion is not admissible as the matter now stands. 
It is true that following the description of the boundary agreed 
upon in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty provision is made in Article 
II as follows: 

"It being understood that all the water-communications and all 
the usual portages along the line from Lake Superior to the Lake 
'of the Woods; and also Grand Portage, from the shore of Lake Su- 
perior to the Pigeon river, as now actually used, shall be free and 
open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both countries." 

No reference, however, is made to these portages as forming 
part of the boundary. The provision applies equally to the water 
communications whether part of the boundary or not, thus destroy- 
ing any such inference. 

In Brabazon's report it is also stated that he is satisfied from the 
examination made that — 

"When an accurate survey of the lakes is made the positions and 
extent of many of the islands, bays, and channels will be found to 
differ considerably from those shown on the maps of 1842; yet, the 
boundary line as laid down on those maps is very easily followed." 



47 

He further states in his report, as a matter of interest in con- 
nection with the question of monumenting this line: 

"I may add that the lakes appear generally shallow, so that it 
will be possible in most cases to mark the boundary if marks are 
required in the water. The shores also are generally well adapted 
for defining the line by range marks." 

A copy of his maps referred to in, and accompanying the origi- 
nal report, have not been procured. 

FREE AND OPEN NAVIGATION OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE 
BOUNDARY WATERS PROVIDED FOR IN THE TREATY OF 1842. 

Before passing from the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, and in con- 
nection with the provision therein just above referred to, making all 
the usual portages and waterways along the line from Lake Superior 
to the Lake of the Woods "free and open to the use of the citizens 
and subjects of both countries," attention is called to a similar pro- 
vision in Article VII of that treaty with respect to the navigation of 
certain portions of the contiguous boundary waters. Article VII is 
as follows: 

"It is further agreed that the channels in the river St. Lawrence 
on both sides of the Long Sault Islands and of Barnhart Island; the 
channels in the river Detroit on both sides of the Island Bois Blanc, 
and between that Island and both the American and Canadian 
shores; and all the several channels and passages between the vari- 
ous Islands lying near the junction of the river St. Clair with the 
lake of that name, shall be equally free and open to the ships, vessels, 
and boats of both Parties." 

With respect to this provision it is important to note that in the 
course of the discussions by Messrs. Porter and Barclay, as Commis- 
sioners under the sixth article of the Treaty of 1814, they considered 
the question of including in their final award a — 

"declaration to the effect that they had acted on the principle that 
the navigation of all the lakes, rivers, and water communications 
through which by the treaty of 1783 the boundary was to pass, 
should continue open and free to the citizens and subjects of the 
two powers, unaffected by the course of the line established by the 
award." (Moore on International Arbitrations, vol. i, p. 166.) 

The purpose of this proposed declaration was stated to be not 
only to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement, but also to prevent 
future difficulties as to the right of navigation. The question was 
submitted to the two Governments and was acceded to by the Presi- 
dent of the United States, but the British minister at Washington 
declined to sanction it on the part of his Government, on the ground 



48 

that such a declaration would tend to cast doubt on what his Gov- 
ernment held to be a matter of right. It appears, however, from 
this provision in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty that ultimately both 
Governments came to the conclusion that it was desirable to make a 
specific provision for the use of the waters at the particular points 
indicated. 

Bou7idary channels apparently can not be dredged by either Government 

without the consent of the other. 

The provision for the free navigation of certain channels came up 
for consideration in 1893, in connection with the work undertaken 
by the United States in widening and deepening the channel at the 
Lime Kiln Crossing below Detroit, and removing obstructions in 
some of the lower channels, which improvements involved dredging 
to some extent on the Canadian side of the boundary. 

It appears that in 1874 a plan was projected for a channel 300 
feet wide, which was afterwards extended to the width of 440 feet, 
and this work was carried on under appropriations made by Con- 
gress, without reference to its relation to the international boundary 
line and without interference by the Canadian authorities, although 
no distinct understanding in regard to the matter was arrived at 
with the Canadian Government. In the summer of 1893, however, 
it was reported that the Canadian collector of customs at Amherst- 
burg, Ontario, had intimated to the engineers in charge of the work 
that he was under instructions to seize any American plant working 
in Canadian waters (Secretary of War to Secretary of State, June 30, 
1893), and on July 6, 1893, the Secretary of State wrote to the' 
British ambassador urging- — ■ 

"that permission be obtained from the Dominion authorities to pro- 
ceed with the work of improvement along the best lines without 
regard to the exact location of the international boundary line." 

The question was referred to the Canadian Privy Council and 
the conclusions of that body, as stated in a subcommittee report 
approved August 8, 1893, were briefly as follows: 

It is pointed out in this report that from the Canadian point of 
view the improved channel at the Lime Kiln Crossing was regarded 
as exclusively in Canadian waters under the boundary line fixed by 
the maps and description adopted by the Commissioners unde;r the 
sixth article of the Treaty of Ghent. It was admitted, however, 
that the view adopted by the United States, on the other hand, was, 
as stated in the report made by the Chief Engineer, U. S. Army, 
on November 14, 1888 (S. Ex. Doc. No. 52 of 1889), that — 

"All the channel opened by the United States at the Lime Kiln 
Crossing is in American waters, except the extreme northeast and 
southeast corners of the cut." 



49 

The report of the subcommittee of the Privy Council then pro- 
ceeds: 

"By the seventh article of the Treaty of 1842 it was provided as 
follows: 'It is further agreed that the channel in the River St. Law- 
rence, on both sides of the Long Sault Islands and of Barnhart's 
Island, the channel in the River Detroit on both sides of the Island of Bois 
Blanc and between that Island and both the American and Canadian shores^ 
and all the several channels and passages between the various Islands 
lying near the junction of the River St. Clair with the lake of that 
name, shall be equally free and open for the ships, vessels, and boats 
of both parties. ' 

"This provision, while disposing by the concession of mutual 
rights in the channels of the difficulties of boundary at the islands 
named, does not affect the boundary line south of those islands where 
it would appear that the obstructions ?w%v to be removed exist, nor does it 
affect the Lime Kiln Crossing, which lies north of them. 

"It may thus be safely concluded that the present application of 
the United States Government is one which affects Canadian waters 
and which it rests with hei' to grant or to refuse." 

In this connection it is stated that the reference to the question 
of the boundary line is made simply — 

"in order that no misunderstanding may hereafter take place, lead- 
ing to the assumption by the United States of any particular right 
to the waterways by virtue of the steps which it may now take to 
improve these channels." 

The report concludes with a recommendation — 

"that authority be given to the United States Government, in ac- 
cordance with their present request, to proceed with the work of 
removing obstructions in this river, irrespective of the boundary 
line, such authority to be understood expressly as being given with- 
out prejudice to the possessory rights of Canada, as defined by the 
maps and declarations of the Commissioners under the Treaty of 
Ghent, made and done at Utica on the i8th of June, 1822." 

A copy of the minute of the Privy Council granting the authority 
requested was inclosed by the British ambassador to the Secretary 
of State in his note of August 23, 1893, in which it is stated: 

" The authority is granted without prejudice to the possessory 
rights of Canada as defined by the maps and declarations of the 
Commissioners under the Treaty of Ghent." 

Subsequently, in the River and Harbor Act of June 13, 1902, 
Congress adopted a project for the improvement of the Detroit 
River from Detroit to Lake Erie, providing for a channel of at least 
600 feet width and 21 feet low-water depth, following in general the 
channel already under improvement, but locating- the side lines of 

N B 4 



50 

excavations so as to straighten the channel as far as practicable, and 
especially to eliminate the dangerous bends existing between the 
head of Lime Kiln Crossing and Bois Blanc Island. It was specific- 
ally stated in the project that the enlarged channel near Amherst- 
burg would lie in Canadian waters, and that some claim for damages 
would be expected from property owners along the Canadian shores. 
The situation as above outlined was called to the attention of 
the British ambassador at Washington by the Secretary of State 
in his note of April 7, 1904, in which it is further stated that — 

"It appears that under the laws of Canada property rights in the 
land under navigable waters may be acquired by private parties, 
and that the owners of shore property on the Canadian side of the 
river, in the vicinity of Amhertsburg, have deeds from the Crown 
for the adjacent submerged land, 'to the channel bank,' this sub- 
merged land being designated in the deeds as 'water lots.' 

"As the operations of this Government in Canadian waters are, 
being conducted by the courtesy and with the consent of the Cana- 
dian Government, it is proper that this Government should take into 
consideration the rights of the owners of the submerged land under 
the laws of Canada, and acquire the right to excavate material within 
or across the private water lots. A fund considered ample to pay 
for the acquisition of this right has been set aside from the appro- 
priations already made by Congress for the improvement. The 
lines bounding these water lots, and the channel lines which will 
result from the proposed improvements under the aforesaid adopted 
project, are shown on the accompanying maps. 

"It is believed that an arrangement with the owners of the prop- 
erty for a grant to the United States of the privilege desired, and an 
adjustment of the question of compensation therefor, can be best 
accomplished by officials of the Canadian Government. I have 
therefore the honor to solicit your good offices to the end that you 
may be pleased to bring the matter to the attention of the Canadian 
Government and to commend it to their favorable consideration." 

It does not appear from the records in the Department of State 
that this note was ever answered or that the receipt of it even was 
acknowledged. 



CESSION OF HORSE-SHOE REEF IN 1850 BY GREAT BRITAIN TO THE 

UNITED STATES. 

On December 9, 1850, a conference was held at the Foreign Office 
in London between Abbott Lawrence, the United States minister, 
and Lord Palmerston, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Great 
Britain, at which it was agreed that Great Britain should cede to 
the United States Horse-Shoe Reef in Niagara River, just below the 



51 

cutlet of Lake Erie, for the purposes and under the conditions ex- 
pressed in the protocol of that conference, and which are therein 
stated as follows: 

"Mr. Lawrence stated that he was instructed by his Government 
to call the attention of the British Government to the dangers to 
which the important commerce of the great Lakes of the Interior of 
America, and more particularly that concentrating at the town of 
Buffalo near the entrance of the Niagara River from Lake Erie, and 
that passing through the Welland Canal, is exposed from the want 
of a lighthouse near the outlet of Lake Erie. Mr. Lawrence stated 
that the current of the Niagara River is at that spot very strong, 
and increases in rapidity as the river approaches the falls; and as 
that part of the river is necessarily used for the purpose of a harbor, 
the Congress of the United States, in order to guard against the 
danger arising from the rapidity of the current, and from other local 
causes, made an appropriation for the construction of a lighthouse 
at the outlet of the lake. But on a local survey being made, it was 
found that the most eligible site for the erection of the lighthouse 
was a reef known by the name of the 'Horse-shoe Reef, which is 
within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty; and Mr. Lawrence 
was therefore instructed by the Government of the United States to 
ask whether the Government of Her Britannic Majesty will cede 
to the United States the Horse-shoe Reef, or such part thereof as 
may be necessary for the purpose of erecting a lighthouse; and if 
not, whether the British Government will itself erect and maintain 
a lighthouse on the said Reef. 

"Viscount Palmerston stated to Mr. Lawrence in reply, that Her 
Majesty's Government concurs in opinion with the Government of 
the United States, that the proposed lighthouse would be of great 
advantage to all vessels navigating the Lakes; and that Her Majes- 
ty's Government is prepared to advise Her Majesty to cede to the 
United States such portion of the Horse-shoe Reef as may be found 
requisite for the intended lighthouse, provided the Government of 
the United States will engage to erect such lighthouse, and to main- 
tain a light therein; and provided no fortification be erected on the 
said Reef. 

"Mr. Lawrence and Viscount Palmerston, on the part of their 
respective Governments, accordingly agreed that the British Crown 
should make this cession, and that the United States should accept 
it, on the above-mentioned conditions." (Treaties and Conventions, 
p. 444.) 

This arrangement was approved on behalf of the United States 
by Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State, in his note of January 17, 
1851, to Mr. Lawrence, and the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs 
was so notified by Mr. Lawrence on February 10, 1851. 

The necessary appropriations for the erection of the light-house 
were made by Congress (9 Stat, at L., 380 and 627; 10 Stat, at L., 
343), and the light-house was erected in 1856. 



52 

This cession raises an interesting question as to its effect upon 
the boundary, and the status of the Reef with respect to the juris- 
diction of the two countries. No mention is made in the negotia- 
tions or the final arrangements of any change in the boundary so as 
to include the Reef within the borders of the United States, but if 
the Reef is to be regarded as a part of the United States then a 
change in the boundary to so include it is necessarily implied. If, 
on the other hand, the Reef is to be regarded as property of the 
United States lying within the Dominion of Canada, then the bound- 
ary line would be undisturbed. In that case, however, the status 
of the Reef with respect to the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the 
respective countries would still remain to be determined. It does 
not appear that these questions have ever been raised, and they are 
not likely to become of practical importance so long as the United 
States continues to maintain a light-house there. 

THE LOCATION OF THE BOUNDARY WITH RESPECT TO TWO IS- 
LANDS IN LAC LA CROIX AND AN ISLAND IN THE LAKE OF 
THE WOODS. 

Prior to the discovery of the existence of the missing Webster 
and Ashburton maps, showing the boundary in Lac la Croix, a 
question arose as to the nationality of Hunters and Coleman islands, 
in that lake, under the following circumstances: 

About the year 1883 an American citizen had located as a settler 
on Coleman Island, understanding it to be within the borders of the 
State of Minnesota. Some time thereafter the provincial govern- 
ment of Ontario made a survey of timber along the boundary at that 
point and included Hunters and Coleman islands in the survey. 
This circumstance was reported to the United States Government, 
and on July 3, 1895, a note was written by Mr. Uhl, Assistant Secre- 
tary of State, to the British ambassador in Washington, calling the 
matter to his attention. In that note the question of the ownership 
of Hunters Island was not discussed, but with respect to Coleman 
Island it is stated that it appears impossible that the jurisdiction 
over it could legitimately become a subject of contention, and that — 

"not only is its position well to the south of any natural boundary 
line passing through the waters of the Lac la Croix, but by con- 
tinued occupation and governmental survey during many years a 
presumption of title on our behalf has been established, not to be 
set aside save upon the most absolute proof to the contrary, the bur- 
den of which necessarily would rest upon the Canadian authorities." 

It is further stated that " no chart of that portion of the boundary 
has ever been made by the two Governments jointly." The subse- 
quent discovery of the missing maps with the Webster-Ashburton 



53 

line marked on them makes a revision of this statement necessary, 
and also puts the claim of the United States with respect to these 
islands on an entirely different footing. 

In Mr. Uhl's note above referred to he proposed that an "exact 
agreement" be reached between the two Governments — 

"whereby this portion of the boundary line between the United 
States and Her Majesty's Dominion of Canada may be precisely 
marked, in accordance with the true intent of the contracting parties 
expressed in the Treaty of 1842, and having due regard to prescrip- 
tive rights of undisputed occupation within the reasonable limits of 
such boundary." 

In this connection he called attention to the fact that the line 
through Lac la Croix as proposed by the British Commissioner 
under Article VII of the Treaty of 1814, which was shown on the 
certified copy of the subchart attached to No. XV, substituted in 
the American set for the missing original as aforesaid, placed both 
of these islands on the American side of the boundary. The subse- 
quent discovery of the missing original of this chart shows that 
Webster and Ashburton adopted as the boundary the line so pro- 
posed by the British Commissioner, and the original chart with the 
proposed line marked on it was signed by them as one of the bound- 
ary charts under the Treaty of 1842. This would seem to dispose 
of the British claims with respect to these islands if it be found, as 
stated by Mr. Uhl, that they both are on the American side of such 
line. 

In Mr. Adee's report of February 21, 1896, above referred to, this 
incident is fully discussed and the correspondence with respect to 
it is there printed. 

The incident is also discussed in Moore's International Law 
Digest, Volume I, page 751, section 158. 

In January, 1896, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 
House of Representatives made an inquiry of the State Department 
with respect to this question, and also generally with respect to the 
condition of the northern boundary, in connection with a concurrent 
resolution then pending in Congress, authorizing the President to 
enter into negotiations for the settlement of the boundary between 
the State of Minnesota and the British possessions. 

In acknowledging the receipt of this inquiry, Mr. Olney wrote to 
the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee on January 24, 1896, 
stating, in accordance with the then accepted belief, which has since 
been proved erroneous, that — 

"As is stated in the preamble of the resolution submitted, there 
has been no agreement between the two Governments delimiting the 
territorial dominion of each, from the mouth of the Pigeon River to 



54 



// 



and through the water communication up to latitude 49*^ 23' 55 
north, longitude 95° 14' 38" west, the point accepted in Article II of 
the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, as the definitive termination 
of the boundary of the Treaty of Paris, 1783, as ratified by Article 
VII of the Treaty of Ghent, 1814." 

The letter continues: 

"The rapid settlement of the territory adjacent to the boundary 
line, both in the State of Minnesota and the Province of Ontario, 
has already caused vexatious questions growing out of this undeter- 
mined line to arise, and renders it of great importance, in order to 
avoid collisions between the inhabitants and officials of the two 
countries, that a boundary line should be clearly marked and con- 
ventionally agreed upon. 

"To this end negotiations have been in progress for some time, 
and it is the view of the Department that should an appropriation 
be made, in the event of the negotiation of a treaty for the purpose, 
to defray the expenses of a joint survey and commission to report 
upon an agreement founded on the true intent of the previous 
boundary treaties, as may be demonstrated by an accurate examina- 
tion of the territory referred to, it would materially assist in the 
settlement of this unadjusted boundary." 

In 1895 there also arose a question with respect to the nationality 
of another island adjacent to this boundary, known as Oak Island, 
in the Lake of the Woods. It was reported that the Canadian 
authorities were making surveys for the purpose of showing that the 
channel in the Lake of the Woods lay to the westward of this island, 
with the intention of claiming that the boundary line should follow 
the channel, thus placing the island on the Canadian side. Upon 
inquiry it was found that this report arose from a misapprehension, 
and it was stated on the part of the Canadian Government that the 
report was without foundation and that no such survey had been 
undertaken. 

The Canadian position is stated in the minutes of the Privy 
Council, approved January 8, 1896, from which the following extract 
is taken : 

"The minister further states that the only incident which has 
come under his notice which might have been instrumental in lead- 
ing to rumor resulting in the representations to the United States 
Government, is connected with the issue of fishing licenses in Lake 
of the Woods. 

" It has been claimed by certain parties and supported by the 
opinion of a number of old settlers that the boundary line followed 
the steamboat channel, and that such channel was south of Oak 
Island. Also, some inquiries were made at the time touching the 
identity of the island laid down as No. i in the boundary map with 
that commonly known as Oak Island. Beyond the authoritative 
establishment of the boundary as laid down in the conventions cited 



55 

by Mr. Secretary Olney, and of the identity of the island designated 
as No. I, the department of marine and fisheries has had no concern 
whatever; neither has it in any way suggested an expansion of ter- 
ritory or jurisdiction beyond that conventionally conferred upon the 
Crown." (Foreign Relations, 1895, part i, p. 725.) 

For a statement of this case see Moore's International Law Digest, 
Volume I, page 752, section 158. 

PROPOSALS FOR THE MORE COMPLETE DEFINITION AND MARK- 
ING OF THE ENTIRE BOUNDARY FROM THE ST. LAWRENCE 
AT THE FORTY-FIFTH PARALLEL TO THE NORTHWEST ANGLE 
OF THE LAKE OF THE WOODS, BY JOINT ACTION OF THE TWO 
GOVERNMENTS. 

President Cleveland called attention in his annual message of 
December 2, 1895, "to the unsatisfactory delimitation of the respec- 
tive jurisdictions of the United States and the Dominion of Canada 
in the Great Lakes at the approaches to the narrow waters that con- 
nect them," stating that "the waters in question are frequented by 
fishermen of both nationalities," and that — 

"Owing to the uncertainty and ignorance as to the true bound- 
ary, vexatious disputes and injurious seizures of boats and nets by 
Canadian cruisers often occur, while any positive settlement thereof 
by an accepted standard is not easily to be reached." 

And he declared that — 

"A joint commission to determine the line in those quarters on a 
practical basis, by measured courses following range marks on shore, 
is a necessity for which immediate provision should be made." 

Pursuant to this suggestion a joint resolution (H. Res. 41) was 
introduced in the House to provide for a commission to ascertain 
the boundary between Canada and the United States in the north- 
ern lakes, relating especially to the boundary in Lakes Ontario, 
Erie, St. Clair, Huron, and Superior, and it was in response to a 
request by the Committee on Foreign Affairs for suggestions or 
information from the Department of State on this subject that Mr. 
Adee's report of February 21, 1896, above referred to, was prepared. 

The references in Mr. Adee's report to the line west of Lake 
Superior have been considered herein elsewhere. With respect to 
the boundary through the Great Lakes he says, in his report: 

."The question of the boundary in the Great Lakes and at the 
approaches to the water communications is of a different character, 
being entirely practical and involving the location, upon the face of 
the water by any convenient ascertainment or process, of the treaty 
line as drawn upon the Ghent maps by the Commissioners, and 



56 

subsequently, as to a part of the line, by Mr. Webster and Lord 
Ashburton. The boundary lines so charted appear to have been 
drawn by the aid of rule and dividers upon the charts, and were 
the charts themselves correct in their measurements and dilinea- 
tions of the contours of the lakes it would be possible, by measured 
courses and distances from points on the shores, to locate upon the 
face of the water any particular spot selected in the line so drawn 
upon the map. The maps, however, are far from being accurate as 
to contours or dimensions. That of Lake Ontario, upon comparison 
with the most recent maps executed after exhaustive triangulations, 
is found to be reasonably accurate. It is noted as having been 
copied from the survey made in the years 1815, 1816, 1817, by Capt. 
H. A. W. Owen, of Her Britannic Majesty's royal navy. The chart 
of Lake Ontario is, however, not signed by the Commissioners. 

"The Ghent map of Lake Erie is extraordinarily imperfect in 
contour and inaccurate in dimensions as to all that part lying be- 
tween the entrance to the Niagara River and Port Pelee. It ap- 
pears from a note thereon that the part west of Point Pelee and 
Sandusky, including all the islands, was reduced from the actual 
survey made by order of the Commissioners, and a separate chart of 
the lake westward of Point Pelee, showing the triangulations, and 
duly signed, is embraced in the Ghent series. The same footnote 
further states that 'the other parts of the lake (except the entrance 
into the Niagara River) are reduced from such printed maps as were 
supposed to be the most accurate.' That the Commissioners were 
misled in their estimate of the accuracy of the sources from which 
their map was compiled is evident upon simple measurement. For 
example, in that part opposite Long Point, referred to in the com- 
mittee's letter of the 17th of January as a probable field for dispute, 
the distance from the northwesterly point of Presque Isle, near 
Erie, Pa., to the southern extremity of Long Point is found by the 
scale drawn upon the map itself to be about SJ }{ geographical 
miles, while upon the accurate modern maps, reduced from surveys 
made by the Army Corps of Engineers and published by the Hydro- 
graphic Office, the same distance is in fact a trifle less than 23 miles. 

"This circumstance makes determination by measurement from 
either shore to the delineated boundary of the Ghent map impossible, 
for the distances so measured would overlap some 14 miles in the 
middle of the lake. Neither is an approximate reproduction of the 
Ghent line upon a modern map feasible, owing to the variations in 
the contours of the shores between which it must be drawn. This 
circumstance alone makes the exact determination of the charted 
treaty boundary in Lake Erie entirely impossible for the greater part 
of its length, and even in the narrow waters at either end only an 
approximate location can be determined. 

"The original chart of Lake Erie, like that of Ontario, is un- 
signed by the Commissioners. It may, therefore, be properly said 
that as to the main body of those two lakes there does not exist a 
charting of the boundary having the force and value of treaty. 

"The map of Lake Huron, however, is signed by the Commis- 
sioners, and the boundary marked thereon is expressly attested by 
them to be that designated by Article VI of the treaty. A note shows 
that but a very small portion of the contour of the lake, marked by 



57 

black lines, was actually surveyed. By far the greater part of its 
shore is shown by dotted lines, which the same note says were 
copied from the map of Mr. William Smyth, surveyor-general of 
upper Canada, and are not to be depended on. 

"The small area of Lake St. Clair made its comparatively accu- 
rate triangulation and mapping a work of little difficulty, and the 
boundary traced on the map of that lake and attested by the Com- 
missioners may be taken as a sufficient demarcation for all practical 
purposes. 

"Lastly, the map of Lake Superior bears no note of the sources 
from which it was taken, but is simply designated a 'true map.' In 
practical application, however, it may be assumed that to locate 
upon the face of the water the line traced by Mr. Webster and Lord 
Ashburton would, for the greater part of its length, be no easy task. 
******* 

"So far as the maps of the Treaty of Ghent exhibit a charted 
boundary line attested by the Commissioners, they have been re- 
garded as the ultimate authority under the treaty. They have been 
so recognized on several occasions, as for instance in 1903, when 
question arose touching the encroachment of a portion of the Ameri- 
can Detroit River improvements upon Canadian territory, and in that 
instance the negotiations between the two Governments with respect 
to permission to so encroach were founded upon the line traced in 
the Ghent chart. They have also been appealed to as final author- 
ity in determining questions arising through the seizure of American 
nets and fishing vessels by Canadian cruisers. A recent case, aris- 
ing near Sandusky, a short distance east of Middle Island, in Lake 
Erie, disclosed the fact that the fishermen, relying upon erroneous 
local maps, had set their nets almost due east of Middle Island, 
while the charted line trends southwesterly from that point. The 
courses and ranges recorded in the log of the Canadian cruiser indi- 
cated that the greater part, if not all, of the nets were, in fact, within 
Canadian treaty waters. 

"In the application of this treaty boundary to actual facts and 
circumstances difficulty is found, for two reasons. The first is that 
the maps surveyed or copied by the Commissioners are not always 
accurate as to contours or distances, so that, as above mentioned, 
courses and measurements from given points on either shore, as 
compared with similar courses or measurements from other points, 
can not certainly locate upon an accurate modern map any desig- 
nated point of the charted treaty line. While this difficulty is les- 
sened in the narrow connecting waters, and the approaches thereto, 
it becomes insuperable, as has been shown, in respect to Lake Erie, 
and the same difficulty exists in less degree as to the other Great 
Lakes. 

"In the second place, the charted treaty line is an arbitrary 
curve traced upon the maps prepared by the Commissioners, appa- 
rently by a somewhat tremulous hand, so that the curve is by no 
means regular, and the impossibility of locating any point upon 
such a curve by courses or distances or by range marks on shore is 

evident. 

******* 



58 

"As to the district between Lake Superior and the Lake of the 
Woods, the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 should be a sufficient 
guide for the correct charting of the boundary by an international 
surveying commission. The concurrent resolution introduced by 
Mr. Town covers the latter point, and requests the institution of 
negotiations with the British Government looking to a joint survey 
and demarcation of this part of the treaty boundary. The joint 
resolution (H. Res. 41) appears to contemplate the establishment of 
the true boundary in the Great Lakes by a commission to be ap- 
pointed by the United States alone. It is respectfully submitted 
that the result of such an inquiry and fixation of the line would 
have no international effect and could only be of service so far as it 
might indicate to this Government the ground to be definitely taken 
by it in the conduct of ultimate negotiations. 

"It would seem preferable that a single joint resolution should 
also invite negotiation for a conventional fixation of the lake bound- 
aries by courses, ranges, and distances in substitution for the imper- 
fect line now drawn upon the Ghent maps." 

No action on this recommendation was taken at that session of 
Congress. 

Negotiations by the Joint High Commission in i8g8-gg. 

The Commissioners on both sides were authorized by the official 
instructions issued to them by their respective Governments to agree 
to an arrangement for the more complete definition and marking of 
the boundary wherever it was insufficiently defined. 

In the confidential pamphlet prepared for the information of the 
Commissioners on the part of the United States the following state- 
ment was made with reference to the boundary through the Great 
Lakes and at the approaches of connecting waterways: 

"This boundary is defined under treaty conventions, and the line 
from the St. Lawrence River to the point in Lake Superior above 
referred to is traced on charts; but the charts of Lakes Huron, St, 
Clair, and Superior are the only ones signed by the Commissioners 
under the treaties, and the charts themselves, in their measure- 
ments and courses, are inaccurate, with the exception of the chart 
of Lake Ontario. 

"The more complete definition of the boundary line throughout 
this portion of the frontier involves the location on the water of 
the lines drawn on the charts by the Commissioners under former 
treaties, and the marking of such lines by convenient ranges or 
otherwise. 

"A practical difficulty will be presented in marking an arbitrary 
curved line on the face of the waterways, as indicated on the charts, 
and it has been suggested that courses, distances, and ranges should 
be substituted for the imperfect line now drawn on the Ghent maps." 



59 

The discussions of the Commission on this question appear in a 
special report prepared on the proceedings of the Joint High Com- 
mission. It is sufficient here to say that no agreement as to any 
specific arrangement was reached by the Commission. It was sug- 
gested, however, that inasmuch as the Commission could not itself 
complete this branch of the subject it should be referred to two 
commissioners appointed by the respective Governments, in order 
that it might be taken up from a scientific standpoint. On the line 
of this suggestion the subcommittee of the Commission in charge of 
this subject prepared the draft article set out below, which, how- 
ever, was not submitted to the Commission. It provides for the 
appointment of one geographer or surveyor on each side to ascertain 
and mark the boundary line and report all points of agreement or 
disagreement to their respective Governments, and for a third com- 
missioner to be named in case of a disagreement. This draft article 
is as follows : 

"In order to provide for the amicable adjustment of possible 
differences and conflicts of jurisdiction in respect to the international 
boundary-line hereinafter described, it is agreed that whenever dif- 
ferences shall arise in respect to the precise limits of the respective 
national jurisdictions between the point where the boundary-line 
enters the Iroquois or St. Lawrence River and westward to Rainy 
Lake, as described in the Treaty concluded at Washington on the 
9th day of August, 1842, and known as the Webster-Ashburton 
Treaty, and as further delineated on the maps certified by the signa- 
tures of Daniel Webster and Ashburton to be the maps of boundary 
agreed to by said Treaty, the high Signatory Parties shall each 
appoint one expert geographer or surveyor as a Commissioner, and 
the two Commissioners so appointed, after making oath in writing 
that they will impartially and faithfully perform this duty, shall by 
common accord proceed to ascertain the boundary-line so brought 
in question, and shall designate and mark the same in such manner, 
by monuments on land, or by marks or ranges from the shore where 
the boundary is a water-line, as shall be most practicable and certain, 
and shall make joint report of all points of their agreement and of 
their disagreement, if any, to both Governments. Their joint agree- 
ment shall be accepted as determining the line in question. In case 
of their disagreement, the High Contracting Parties shall agree upon 
a third impartial Commissioner, whose Award upon the point or 
points of disagreement shall be accepted as final. The reasonable 
expenses of such Commission shall be paid by the two Parties in 
equal moieties." 

Later negotiations. 



"A ' 



Subsequent to the adjournment of the Joint High Commission 
some negotiations were had between the two Governments with a 
view to arranging for more completely defining and marking the 
entire boundary between the United States and Canada, from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific, and as appears from the correspondence 



6o 

exchanged both countries were in accord as to the importance and 
advisability of providing for such action wherever it proved to be 
necessary. The question of the boundary through the Great Lakes 
was not particularly discussed, but the line between Lake Superior 
and the Lake of the Woods was specially referred to and the neces- 
sity for resurveying and marking this portion of the line was recog- 
nized. No formal agreement was entered into, however, and the 
question was not carried beyond the expression of a concurrence of 
views between the two Governments. 

In connection with this discussion Mr. Kasson, who was the 
American member of the Joint High Commission subcommittee in 
charge of the boundary question, prepared a memorandum for Mr. 
Hay, which is dated August 7, 1900, and is now on file in the Depart- 
ment of State (bound volume of Miscellaneous Letters of August, 
1900). In that memorandum Mr. Kasson, after referring to the 
missing original treaty charts of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, 
makes the following suggestions: 

"But even with their possession, there remains the need of defi- 
nition by boundary marks of the line of portages, and other land 
lines, between and connecting the water lines crossing summit 
divides, etc. 

."The ownership of certain islands in lakes and rivers north of 
Minnesota has been in dispute, but it is believed will be determined 
by the definite treaty line indicated on the missing maps above 
mentioned. 

^C ?JC ^|h 0j^ 5|C ^5 rf^ 

"One other point is worthy of mention. There are at two 
points — perhaps more — obnoxious projections of national territory 
and jurisdiction beyond the general course of the boundary. It is 
possible that mutually advantageous exchanges of territory might 
be made to the marked improvement of the boundary demarcation, 
and to the convenience of the neighboring inhabitants. This sug- 
gestion occurred to the subcommission, but was not followed to any 
conclusion." 

In the proposed treaty which is now under consideration with ref- 
erence to the inland fisheries it is provided in Article IV as follows: 

"The two governments engage to have prepared as soon as 
practicable, charts of the waters described in this article with the 
international boundary line indicated thereon; and to establish 
such additional boundary monuments, buoys and, marks as may be 
recommended by the commission." 

The waters referred to in this article, as the negotiations now 
stand, include nearly all the boundary waters throughout this portion 
of the boundary. 

The International Water Ways Commission has lately undertaken 
to locate and mark by buoys certain portions of the boundary line 
in Lake Erie where disputes have arisen concerning fishing rights. 



6i 



THE LINE AS SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL TREATY MAPS 
REPRODUCED ON MODERN CHARTS. 

In connection with the preparation of this report the boundary- 
line as shown on the original treaty maps now on file in the Depart- 
ment of State has been traced on a series of modern charts of a 
sufficiently large scale to show the course of the line in detail, which 
charts were procured from the War Department for that purpose. 

This series extends from the beginning of the line in the St. Law- 
rence River through the Great Lakes and connecting waterways to 
the mouth of Pigeon River in Lake Superior. Beyond this point it 
has been impossible as yet to procure accurate charts, or in fact any 
charts on a scale sufficiently large for the purpose. No maps show- 
ing the northern border of the State of Minnesota have been pub- 
lished under the authority of the government of that State. The 
War Department has made surveys of this region, but no charts 
available for the use for which they are desired have been prepared 
from such surveys. The Interior Department also has had surveys 
made under the direction of the General Land Office, but these do 
not extend beyond the edge of the waterways through which the 
boundary runs, except in certain instances where there are islands 
on the American side, and consequently the boundary line can not 
be shown to advantage on the charts prepared from these surveys. 

Arrangements have been made to procure a series of recent maps 
showing the northern border of the State of Minnesota on a large 
scale, prepared unofficially but understood to be accurate, and when 
such maps are received the work of reproducing on modern maps 
the northern boundary as shown on the original boundary maps will 
be completed. 

The line thus shown is, of course, without authoritative value, 
but it serves to indicate such deficiences as may exist in the treaty 
definition or delimitation of any portion of the boundary. The 
actual marking of the line on these charts was done by arrangement 
with the Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, who 
detailed a member of his staff for that purpose, and the work was 
done by him in an exceedingly skillful and satisfactory manner. 
His report on this work, dated March 26, 1906, is now on file in the 
Bureau of Rolls and Library of the Department of State, giving a 
detailed description of the original boundary maps now on file in the 
Department of State, and indicating the portions of the boundary 
not shown on such treaty maps. 



PART III. 



THE NOETHWESTEE^^ BOUKDAEY, FEOM THE ISOETH- 
WESTEENMOST POI^^T OF THE LAKE OF THE WOODS 
TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. 



63 



THE >yOI{THWESTEKN BOUNDAEY, FROM THE NOETH- 
WESTERNMOST POINT OF THE LAKE OF THE WOODS 
TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. 



BOUNDARY EAST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS. 

The treaties of 1782 and 1783 both provided, in identical terms, 
that the northern boundary of the United States should run from 
the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods "on a due 
west course to the river Mississippi." 

It was supposed at the time these treaties were entered into that 
the source of the Mississippi River was far enough north to be 
above a line drawn due west from the point of departure fixed by 
these treaties for this line at the Lake of the Woods. Under these 
treaties the Mississippi River was taken as the western boundary of 
the United States, and the belief then prevailing that the headwaters 
of the Mississippi River were in British territory finds further ex- 
pression in the provision granting to British subjects the right of 
navigation over the intervening waters of that river to the sea. It 
will be observed that this right of navigation was not renewed in 
the treaty of peace (Ghent, 1814) after the war of 1812, at which 
time it was known that the Mississippi River did not extend into 
Canada. 

Some doubt had arisen in regard to the location of the head- 
waters of the Mississippi prior to the making of the Jay Treaty in 
1794, and in consequence of such uncertainty it was provided in that 
treaty, in Article IV: 

"Whereas it is uncertain whether the river Mississippi extends 
so far to the northward as to be intersected by a line to be drawn 
due west from the Lake of the Woods, in the manner mentioned 
in the treaty of peace between His Majesty and the United States: 
it is agreed that measures shall be taken in concert between his 
Majesty's Government in America and the Government of the L^nited 
States, for making a joint survey of the said river from one degree 
of latitude below the falls of St. Anthony, to the principal source or 
sources of the said river, and also of the parts adjacent thereto; and 
that if, on the result of such survey, it should appear that the said 
river would not be intersected by such a line as is above mentioned, 
the two parties will thereupon proceed, by amicable negotiation, to 
regulate the boundary line in that quarter, as well as all other points 
to be adjusted between the said parties, according to justice and 
mutual convenience, and in conformity to the intent of the said 
treaty. " 

N B 5 65 



66 

Subsequently, upon the purchase of the Louisiana Territory in 
1803, extending the borders of the United States beyond the Mis- 
sissippi River, it became necessary to make a further change in the 
description of the northwestern boundary, and an attempt was made 
to agree upon a description of that portion of the boundary by the 
treaty negotiated in 1807, which failed of ratification. (See Moore's 
International Arbitrations, vol. i, pp. 69 and 201, and Moore's In- 
ternational Law Digest, Vol. V, Ch. XVIII, p. 721, sec. 835.) 

No mention of this portion of the line is made in the Treaty of 
1814, but in the Treaty of 1818 the boundary is fixed along the 49th 
parallel from the Lake of the Woods to the "Stony" (Rocky) 
Mountains, and all. reference to the Mississippi River as fixing the 
location of any portion of the boundary is omitted. It was not defi- 
nitely known even then, however, whether the most northwestern 
point of the Lake of the Woods, to which the earlier treaties carried 
the boundary, was north or south of the 49th parallel, and the de- 
scription therefore provided that the line from that point should run 
due north or due south, as the case might be, to the 49th parallel, 
and thence along that parallel due west to the "Stony" (Rocky) 
Mountains. The provisions of the Treaty of 1818 with respect to 
this portion of the boundary are found in Article II and are as 
follows: 

"It is agreed that a line drawn from the most northwestern 
point of the Lake of the Woods, along the forty-ninth parallel of 
north latitude, or, if the said point shall not be in the forty-ninth 
parallel of north latitude, then that a line drawn from the said point 
due north or south as the case may be, until the said line shall in- 
tersect the said parallel of north latitude, and from the point of such 
intersection due west along and with the said parallel shall be the 
line of demarcation between the territories of the United States, 
and those of His Britannic Majesty, and that the said line shall 
form the northern boundary of the said territories of the United 
States, and the southern boundary of the territories of His Britannic 
Majesty, from the Lake of the Woods to the Stony Mountains." 

In the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, Article II, the latitude 
and longitude of the most northwestern point of the Lake of the 
Woods is fixed as north of the ■49th parallel, and the description 
of the boundary from that point is stated as follows, in Article II of 
that treaty: 

"Thence, according to existing treaties, due south to its intersec- 
tion with the 49th parallel of north latitude, and along that parallel 
to the Rocky Mountains." 



67 



BOUNDARY WEST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS TO THE COAST. 

The location of the line west of the Rocky Mountains through 
the Oregon Territory, embracing what is now comprised in British 
Columbia and the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and a part 
of Montana, was dependent upon the settlement of the Oregon ques- 
tion, which it is not necessary to review here. Pending the settle- 
ment of that question it was provided by Article III of the Treaty 
of 1818 as follows: 

"It is agreed, that any country that may be claimed by either 
party on the northwest coast of America, westward of the Stony 
Mountains, shall, together with its harbours, bays, and creeks, and 
the navigation of all rivers within the same, be free and open, for 
the term of ten years from the date of the signature of the present 
convention, to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two Powers: 
it being well understood, that this agreement is not to be construed 
to the prejudice of any claim, which either of the two high contract- 
ing parties may have to any part of the said country, nor shall it be 
taken to affect the claims of any other Power or State to any part of 
the said country; the only object of the high contracting parties, 
in that respect, being to prevent disputes and differences amongst 
themselves." 

This provision was indefinitely extended and continued in force 
by the Treaty of August 6, 1827, with the proviso that it might be 
annulled and abrogated by either party on giving twelve months' 
notice to the other party. 

A brief statement of the several attempts which were made to 
arrive at a settlement of the Oregon question and the location of 
this boundary will be found in Moore's Digest of International Law, 
Volume V, Chapter XVIII, page 721, section 835. (See also Moore's 
International Arbitrations, vol. i, pp. 201-215, ^"^ the Oregon 
Question by Sir Travers Twiss.) 

President Polk, in his annual message on December 2, 1845, 
recommended that the joint occupation of the "Oregon Territory" 
be terminated. By a joint resolution of Congress approved April 27, 
1846, passed with the view "that the attention of the governments 
of both countries may be the more earnestly directed to the adoption 
of all proper measures for a speedy and amicable adjustment of the 
differences and disputes in regard to said territory," the President 
was authorized "at his discretion to give to the government of 
Great Britain the notice required by the second article of the said 
convention of the sixth of August 1827 for the abrogation of the 
same." Notice of abrogation was communicated to the British 
Government on May 22, 1846. 



68 

A settlement of the question, however, had practically been agreed 
upon at that time, and within two months thereafter the Treaty of 
June 15, 1846, was concluded, carrying the boundary west of the 
Rocky Mountains along the 49th parallel to the middle of the channel 
between Vancouver's Island and the mainland, and thence through 
the middle of said channel and of Fuca's Straits to the Pacific Ocean. 

The provisions of the Treaty of June 15, 1846, on this point are 
as follows: 

"Article i. From the point on the forty-ninth parallel of north 
latitude, where the boundary laid down in existing treaties and con- 
ventions between the United States and Great Britain terminates, 
the line of boundary between the territories of the United States and 
those of her Britannic Majesty shall be continued westward along 
the said forty-ninth parallel of north latitude to the middle of the 
channel which separates the continent from Vancouver's Island ; and 
thence southerly through the middle of the said channel, and of 
Fuca's Straits, to the Pacific Ocean ; Provided, however, that the 
navigation of the whole of the said channel and straits, south of 
the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, remain free and open to 
both parties ". 

The treaty further provides: 

*"Art. II. From the point at which the forty-ninth parallel of 
north latitude shall be found to intersect the great northern branch 
of the Columbia River, the navigation of the said branch shall be 
free and open to the Hudson's Bay Company, and to all British sub- 
jects trading with the same, to the point where the said branch 
meets the main stream of the Columbia, and thence down the said 
main stream to the ocean, with free access into and through the 
said river or rivers, it being understood that all the usual portages 
along the line thus described shall, in like manner, be free and open. 
In navigating the said river or rivers, British subjects, with their 
goods and produce, shall be treated on the same footing as citizens 
of the United States; it being, however, always understood that 
nothing in this article shall be construed as preventing, or intended 
to prevent, the Government of the United States from making any 
regulations respecting the navigation of the said river or rivers not 
inconsistent with the present treaty." 

Demarcation of the land boundary zvest of the Rocky Mountains. 

For reasons which need not be detailed here no joint action was 
taken by the two Governments for surveying and monumenting the 
northern boundary between the Pacific and the Lake of the Woods 
until 1856, and then the demarcation of that portion of the line west 
of the Rocky Mountains only was undertaken. 

After a lapse of almost exactly ten years since the making of 
the Treaty of June 15, 1846, fixing the location of the line west of the 
Rocky Mountains Congress passed an act, approved August 11, 



69 

1856, to carry into effect the first article of the treaty referred to. 
This act provided for the appointment of a commissioner and a 
chief astronomer and surveyor on the part of the United States to 
unite with similar officers to be appointed by Her Britannic Majesty's 
Government, to survey and monument the boundary, and an appro- 
priation of $71,000 was made for that purpose. The proceedings 
of the Commission were limited to the demarcation of that part of 
the line which forms the boundary between Washington Territory 
and the British possessions. At that time the Territory of Wash- 
ington, which was organized by act of Congress approved March 2, 
1853, extended along the 49th parallel to the summit of the Rocky 
Mountains. (Sec. 1898, U. S. Rev. Stat.) 

The Commission on the part of the United States was promptly 
organized under this law, and on February 14, 1857, Mr. Archibald 
Campbell was appointed Commissioner, which position he held con- 
tinuously until the close of the work of the Commission in 1869. 

Great Britain assented to the proposition for a joint commission, 
but owing to some delay in the appointment of the British Commis- 
sioner joint operations were not commenced until the summer of 1858. 

The boundary as laid down from the surveys of this Commission 
is shown on a series of maps, seven in number, with an index map, 
one duplicate original set of which is on file in the Department of 
State at Washington. These maps are dated May 7, 1869, and are 
signed by the Commissioners and surveyors of the respective Gov- 
ernments. A photolithographic reproduction of these maps has 
been made and a small edition of such reproduction printed. 

On February 24, 1870, Mr. Fish, the Secretary of State, and 
Sir E. Thornton, the British minister at Washington, joined in a 
written — 

"Declaration approving and adopting the maps prepared by the 
Joint Commission of the Northwest Boundary for surveying and 
marking the Boundaries between the British possessions and the 
United States along the 49th Parallel of North Latitude, under the 
first article of the Treaty of 15th June, 1846." 

This declaration states: 

" The set of maps, seven in number, which have been prepared by 
the Commissioners appointed by the two Powers to survey and mark 
out the Boundary between their respective Territories under the first 
Article of the Treaty concluded between them at Washington on the 
15th of June, 1846, having been produced: 

"And it appearing that they do correctly indicate the said 
Boundary from the point where the Boundary laid down in Treaties 
and Conventions prior to June 15th, 1846, terminates Westward on 
the 49th Parallel of North Latitude to the Eastern shore of the Gulf 
of Georgia, which Boundary has been defined by the Commissioners 
by marks upon the ground: 



70 

"The Undersigned, without prejudice to the rights of their 
respective Governments as to the settlement and the determination 
of the remainder of the said Boundary, hereby declare that the said 
. maps certified and authenticated under the signatures of Archibald 
Campbell, Esquire, the Commissioner of the United States, and 
of Colonel John Summerfield Hawkins, Her Britannic Majesty's 
Commissioner, and of which duplicate copies similarly certified and 
authenticated are in the possession of the Government of Her 
Britannic Majesty have been duly examined and considered, and, 
as well as the marks by which the Boundary to the Eastern shore of 
the Gulf of Georgia has been defined upon the ground, are approved, 
agreed to, and adopted by both Governments." 

In addition to these treaty maps there is also on deposit in the 
Department of State an atlas presented on June 23, 1871, by Sir 
Edward Thornton, then British minister in Washington, containing 
"maps of the land boundary between the British possessions in 
North America and the United States as established by the Treaty 
of Washington, 15th June, 1846, and surveyed and marked under 
the direction of the Joint Commission appointed to carry into effect 
the first article of the treaty," etc. 

The records of the work and proceedings of this Commission, so 
far as they have been preserved, consisting of manuscript, maps, 
computations, observations, sketches, notes, minutes, etc., are also on 
deposit in the Department of State, but as a history of the progress 
of its work they are somewhat incomplete. A report was made by 
the Commissioner on the part of the United States, but this report 
was not published, and it has now disappeared from the records in 
the Department of State and no trace of it can be found. No copy 
of this report has been preserved. (Letter of April 9, 1901, from 
Secretary Hay to Superintendent of the United States Coast and 
Geodetic Survey.) A concise history, however, of the establishment, 
survey, and marking of this portion of the boundary, with a summary 
of results, was prepared by Mr. Marcus Baker, of the United States 
Geological Survey, in the year 1900, from an examination of all 
the available records, "memoranda, notes, sketches, pictures, corre- 
spondence, and memories of men still living," and has been published 
as Bulletin No. 174 of the United States Geological Survey, under the 
title "Survey of the Northwestern Boundary of the United States." 

The boundary marks and monuments. 

The records of the Commission show that at the outset the Com- 
missioners entered into the following agreement: 

"After discussing plans for determining and marking the line as 
far eastward as the Cascade Mountains, it was concluded to be inex- 
pedient at the present lime, in consequence of the great expense, 



71 

consumption of time, and the impriicticable nature of the country, 
to mark the whole boundary by cutting a track through the dense 
forest. 

" It was therefore agreed to ascertain points on the line by the 
determination of astronomical points at convenient intervals on or 
near the boundary, and to mark such astronomical stations or points 
fixed on the parallel forming the boundary by cutting a track of 
not less than 20 feet in width on each side for the distance of half a 
mile or more, according to the circumstances. Further, that the 
boundary be determined and similarly marked where it crosses 
streams of any size, permanent trails, or any striking natural feature 
of the country. 

"In the vicinity of settlements on or near the line it is deemed 
advisable to cut the track for a greater distance and to mark it in a 
manner to be determined hereafter." 

With respect to this agreement, Mr. Baker says in his pamphlet: 

"This arrangement for the part west of the Cascades appears to 
have been subsequently applied to the whole line ; and thus it re- 
sulted that of the entire boundary, 409.5 miles long, from the bound- 
ary station on the crest of the Rocky Mountains westward to the 
obelisk on the western side of Point Roberts, 190 miles were cleared 
and marked and 220 miles were not traced out, cleared, surveyed, or 
marked. These figures are obtained by scaling off from the final 
maps." 

The initial monument of the line thus marked was a granite obe- 
lisk erected at Point Roberts on the eastern shore of the Gulf of 
Georgia and the terminal monument \yas a stone pyramid erected on 
the crest of the Rocky Mountains "in a spot very difficult of access, 
and therefore better adapted to preserve it from being disturbed." 

Between these points, distant 410 miles apart, the line was marked 
by i6i monuments of iron pillars, stone obelisks or pyramids, bench 
marks, earth mounds, or piles of stone and earth. The distance be- 
tween these monuments varies somewhat, depending upon the char- 
acter 9.nd requirements of the country. 

From the records of this Commission it appears that the amount 
actually expended by the United States for the demarcation of this 
line amounted to nearly $600,000, or about $1,463 per mile. See 
appropriation acts as follows: 

Act of August II, 1856, U. S. Stat, at Large, vol. 11, p. 42. 

Act of February 7, 1857 {id), p. 159. 

Act of June 5, 1858 {id), p. 312. 

Act of March 3, 1859 {id), p. 403. 

Act of May 26, i860 {id), vol. 12, p. 20. 

The cost to the British Government of running and marking the 
line does not appear. 



72 

In a letter from the British Commissioner, J. S. Hawkins, to the 
British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, dated May lo, 1869, 
he describes the actual demarcation of the boundary line as follows : 

"5. The actual demarcation was effected as follows: The west- 
ern extremity of the boundary is marked by a substantial granite 
obelisk in west longitude 123° 3' 53", which stands upon a steep cliff 
on the western face of the promontory of Point Roberts, about 160 
feet above the sea. The several faces of the obelisk are inscribed as 
follows: On the north face with the names of Her Majesty's water 
and land boundary Commissioners, Captn. J. C. Prevost and G. H. 
Richards, R. N., and Lieut. Colonel J. S. Hawkins, R. E. ; on the 
south face with the name of the American Commissioner, Archibald 
Campbell; on the west face with the designation and date of the 
treaty, viz. Treaty of Washington, 15th June, 1846, and on the east 
face with the latitude and longitude, and the year of erection, viz: 
Latitude 49° o' o" N., longitude 123° 3' 53" W., erected 1861. For 
44^^-5- miles eastward there are 42 iron pillars placed at points on the 
boundary which the officer to whom the duty was entrusted thought 
most suitable and convenient. One pillar stands on the eastern face 
of Point Roberts, 2 miles 704 yards from the obelisk, and there are 
two intermediate pillars in the interval at average distances apart of 
somewhat more than f mile. A pillar on the west shore of Semi- 
ahmoo Bay is 12 m. 1177 yards from that on Point Roberts on the 
opposite side of the bay; and thence in 29I miles to the easternmost 
pillar the average distance apart is about 1,380 yards, varying 
between one mile 1,245 yards and 198 yards on the opposite banks of 
the Sumass River. These pillars all stand in a continuous cutting 
through the forest or in intervening patches of swamp and prairie. 
From the easternmost iron pillar to the right or west bank of the 
Similkameen River, in io7y'*-q- miles, the boundary is defined in the 
vicinity of 9 astronomical stations by 19 cairns or pyramids built of 
dry stones as carefully as the materials and circumstances would 
permit, and one bench mark cut on the face of a rock (at Ensak- 
watch) ; and at several stations short vistas were also cut in the for- 
est, between the cairns. This wide interval comprises the rugged 
and inhospitable region of the Cascade Mountains, in which it would 
only have been possible to mark the boundary line more continuously 
by an expenditure of time and money out of all proportion to the 
object in view. One of the widest unmarked intervals on the bound- 
ary occurs in these mountains, between Passayten and Naisnuloh, 
the distance between the marked points being 23 j''^ miles; and this 
might have been obviated by placing a station on the main or west- 
ern branch of the Naisnuloh River, which, however, would have 
prolonged the work of the British Commission by another season. 

"From a cairn at the foot of the mountains on the west side of 
the Similkameen River to the east or left bank of the Columbia, the 
boundary for the 95 miles is well and continuously marked by 69 
stone cairns and one mound of earth, and by forest cuttings in all 
necessary cases. This was the most favourable portion of the work, 
part of the line passing over rolling prairie country interspersed with 
wood ; but very considerable portions were also mountainous, rugged, 
and heavily timbered, though more accessible from the valley of the 



73 

Newhoialpitkwn River than were the Cascade Mountains. Two 
cairns stand within 129 yards of each other on the east bank of the 
Columbia River (one having been placed by each Commission) and 
the average distance apart of the remainder is i mile 679 yards. 
From the hill tops the line of boundary defined by the cairns and 
cuttings can be traced for many miles. 

"For the remaining T6iy\|^ miles between the eastern cairn on 
the left bank of the Columbia River and the terminal point on the 
watershed of the Rocky Mountains in west longitude 114° 3' 28" the 
boundary passes over successive mountain ranges intersected only 
by the valley of the Kootenay River at two points 75f miles apart, 
and by the adjacent valleys of the Flathead River and its tributary 
Kishenehu Creek, by which alone the 49th parallel is practically 
accessible, though even then by long circuitous routes. This por- 
tion of the line is marked in the vicinity of 9 astronomical stations 
by 26 cairns and one bench mark cut in the face of a rock at the 
Kootenay Mtn. station, and by a cairn fixed by survey on the trail 
between Kootenay West and Mooyie stations; and the usual forest 
vistas were cut at the several defined points, besides longer cuttings 
of 10 and 7 miles at the eastern crossing of the Kootenay, and be- 
tween the Flathead and Kishenehu rivers. No better means for 
marking the eastern end of the boundary were at command than 
by a dry stone pyramid of the usual description, which was built as 
carefully as possible, and which may be preserved for many year^ 
by its protected situation on a narrow saddle with precipitous sides 
connecting two lofty mountains, which position will moreover serve 
to identify the approximate locality of the boundary at any future 
time. Between the Columbia and the Rocky Mountains, exclusive 
of the Mooyie trail cairn, and the intervals between Kootenay 
Mountain and Kootenay West stations and Mooyie and Yahk sta- 
tions, the distances between the consecutively marked points at the 
several astronomical stations average about 13;^ miles; but between 
the stations named they extend to 25 and 24 miles, owing to the 
inaccessible nature of the intervening country, which is quite as bad 
as the Cascade Mountains. 

''6. Having thus described the manner in which the land bound- 
ary has been marked from end to end, I respectfully request your 
lordship's consideration of the 3rd article of the closing protocol, 
by which the Commissioners agreed to understand the boundary 
laid out by them to consist of a series of straight lines between the 
successively marked points, without regard to the distances between 
those points or the curve of the parallel in the longer intervals. 
We were induced to do this upon the consideration that it was of 
the greatest importance nothing should be left ior future discussion 
or settlement, and that our operations should be final and con- 
clusive. Even had the boundary line been continuously marked 
throughout by defined points, at say a mile apart, the actual parallel 
would have been departed from by the straight lines or chords join- 
ing such lines upon it; and owing to the insuperable difficulties 
attending a more minute demarcation in the rugged country trav- 
ersed by us we have been compelled to adopt a more irregular and 
longer-sided polygon than we should have wished. I may state that 
opposite the centre of a chord of 25 miles in length the departure 



74 

from the 49th parallel would be about 40 yards, and of 12 miles 9 
yards, which in such country and under present circumstances is of 
no appreciable value, and this even would be materially affected by 
the very great uncertainty attending the precision of the astronomical 
results previously alluded to; so that I hope our definite action in 
the matter will be fully approved. The points being identified, they 
can be joined at any time with no greater difficulty than attends the 
running of a straight line between two fixed points over a rough 
country, and sometimes for a considerable distance, but no scientific 
question would be involved in the operation, which could be per- 
formed by any careful surveyor." 

In the same letter he renewed a suggestion which was made by 
him in an earlier letter to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 
dated August 4, 1862, which suggestion as made in the later letter 
is as follows: 

"7. The above remarks lead me to request your lordship's further 
consideration of the necessity of entering into a convention with the 
United States, supplementary to the treaty of the 15th June, 1846, 
declaratory of the boundary marked out by the Joint Commission, 
being the boundary of the treaty, notwithstanding any possible de- 
partures from the actual line of the forty-ninth parallel. The more 
than probability that such departures unavoidably exist is alluded 
to above, and in previous reports; and the necessity for a supple- 
mentary convention was suggested by me in the concluding para- 
graph of my letter No. 28 of the 4th August, 1862, and recognized 
by Her Majesty's government in a letter from the treasury to Mr. 
Hammond, dated 26th September, 1862." 

The protocol of the closing sessions of the Joint Commission, 
which is signed under the date of May 7, 1869, by both Commis- 
sioners, contains the following recitals: 

"i. The astronomical and geodetical determinations of the sev- 
eral astronomical stations, and of the points on the forty-ninth par- 
allel of north latitude by which the boundary has been defined 
between its western terminus at Point Roberts in west longitude 1 23° 
3' 53" and its eastern terminus on the watershed of the Rocky Moun- 
tains in west longitude 114° 3' 28", agreed upon and exchanged in 
May, 1863, between Captain R. W. Haig, R. A., chief astronomer of 
the British commission, and G. Clinton Gardner, assistant astrono- 
mer and surveyor to the United States Commission, having been 
carefully compared and corrected, are finally adopted, and lists of 
them are countersigned (2) and hereunto attached. 

" 2. The two sets of seven maps prepared severally by the respec- 
tive commissions upon the above-named data on a scale of i :i2o,ooo, 
having been carefully compared and countersigned, are hereby de- 
clared to represent so much of the boundary described in the first 
article of the treaty between Her Britannic Majesty and the United 
States of America, dated 15th June, 1846, as is comprised between 
the intersection of the watershed of the Rocky Mountains by the 
forty-ninth parallel of north latitude in west longitude 114° 3' 28" 



75 

and the point at which the 49th parallel of north latitude strikes the 
eastern shore of the channel which separates the continent from 
Vancouver's Island in west longitude 123° 3' 53". 

"3. It is agreed by the Commissioners that, between any two 
successive defined points marked on the ground shown on the maps, 
and set forth in the accompanying lists, the line of boundary above 
described is to be understood to be a right or straight line; and that 
this rule is to apply throughout the entire boundary without regard 
to the distances between the consecutive points or to the course of 
the parallel in such intervals." 



THE WATER BOUNDARY FROM THE FORTY-NINTH PARALLEL OF 
NORTH LATITUDE WHERE IT STRIKES THE GULF OF GEORGIA 
TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. 

This portion of the boundary is described in the Treaty of 1846 
as follows: 

"thence southerly through the middle of the said channel, and of 
Fuca's Straits, to the Pacific Ocean: Provided, however, that the 
navigation of the whole of the said channel and straits, south of 
the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude, remain free and open to 
both parties." 

Just below the Gulf of Georgia, as the channel between Van- 
couver's Island and the mainland is now called, there lies an archi- 
pelago among the islands of which there are several channels which 
connect the waters of the Gulf of Georgia with the Strait of Juan de 
Fuca. Almost immediately after the Treaty of 1846 was made doubt 
arose as to the course of the boundary through these several chan- 
nels. The respective positions of the two Governments on this 
question and the course of the negotiations for its adjustment are 
stated at length in Moore's International Arbitrations, volume i, 
pages 213-224. 

It seems that at the time when the treaty was made only two of 
these channels had been surveyed and marked. These were known 
as Canal de Haro and a channel to the east known as Rosario Strait. 
On the part of Great Britain it was claimed that the boundary should 
run through this latter channel, which was the most easterly of all 
the connecting channels, and on the part of the United States it 
was claimed that the Canal de Haro, the most westerly, was the 
course intended. 

An unsuccessful attempt was made to settle the disagreement 
between the two countries on this point by the appointment of a 
Joint Commission for running the line. This Commission was ap- 
pointed concurrently with the Commission for marking the land 
portion of the boundary under the Treaty of 1846, but the Commis- 
sioners were unable to agree. The American Commissioner refused 
to accept any other channel than the Canal de Haro, and rejected a 



76 

compromise offer of an intermediate channel proposed by Great 
Britain. 

During the succeeding years negotiations for the settlement of 
this boundary dragged along without much advancement, and there 
being no prospect of an agreement Great Britain finally proposed 
arbitration by the King of the Netherlands, the King of Sweden 
and Norway, or the President of Switzerland. This proposition 
was not accepted by the United States. 

In 1869 a convention between the two countries was concluded 
for the submission of the boundary question to arbitration by the 
President of the Swiss Confederation, but was not approved by the 
United States Senate. The question was still open, therefore, when 
the Joint High Commission between the United States and Great 
Britain met in Washington in 187 1 and was taken up at that time. 

By Articles XXXIV-XLII of the Treaty of 187 1, agreed upon by 
that Commission, the question was referred to arbitration by the 
Emperor of Germany to decide finally and without appeal which of 
the respective claims was most in accordance with the true interpre- 
tation of the Treaty of June 15, 1846. The German Emperor ac- 
cepted the office of arbitrator. George Bancroft, then United States 
minister at Berlin, was detailed to represent the United States, and 
Admiral James C. Prevost was appointed to represent Great Britain 
on this arbitration. The positions and arguments on the part of the 
two countries do not require an examination for the purposes of this 
report. They will be found stated at length in Moore's International 
Arbitrations, volume i, pages 224-235. The award of the German 
Emperor was made on October 21, 1872. It recites that after an 
examination of the treaty and the evidence and arguments, etc. — 

"most in accordance with the true interpretation of the treaty con- 
cluded on the 15th of June, 1846, between the governments of Her 
Britannic Majesty and of the United States of America is the claim 
of the Government of the United States that the boundary line be- 
tween the territories of Her Britannic Majesty and the United States 
should be drawn through Haro Channel." 

By a protocol signed March 10, 1873, by Hamilton Fish, Secre- 
tary of State, Sir Edward Thornton, British minister to the United 
States, and Admiral Prevost, the boundary Commissioner on the 
part of Great Britain, the line as finally fixed and determined was 
fully defined and described in detail. It was also marked on four 
identical charts prepared for the purpose, which were duly signed 
and two were retained by each Government. The two retained by 
the United States are deposited in the Department of State. A re- 
production of the charts is published, together with the protocol, in 
Foreign Relations, 1873, Volume I, page xxv. (See also Moore's 
International Arbitrations, vol i, p. 231.) 



11 



SURVEYING AND MARKING THE BOUNDARY FROM THE LAKE OF 
THE WOODS TO THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS. 

Under the Treaty of 1818 the 49th parallel of north latitude was 
agreed upon as the boundary between the Lake of the Woods and 
the Rocky Mountains, and in the Treaty of 1842 the actual loca- 
tion of the northwest corner of the Lake of the Woods was fixed 
as north of the 49th parallel and the direction of the line from that 
point to such parallel was determined. 

, No joint action for the physical demarcation of this portion of 
the boundary, however, was taken by the two Governments until 
1872, when Congress passed an act, approved March 19 of that year, 
authorizing the President to cooperate with the Government of Great 
Britain in the appointment of a joint commission to survey and mark 
this portion of the line. With the cooperation of Great Britain 
the joint commission authorized under this act was soon thereafter 
.organized. Archibald Campbell was appointed Commissioner on 
the part of the United States and D. R. Cameron, Major, R. A., was 
appointed Commissioner on the part of Great Britain. The chief 
astronomer of the Commission on the part of the United States was 
Maj. F. W. Farquhar, afterwards succeeded by Maj. W. J. Twining, 
and on the part of Great Britain Capt. S. Anderson, of the Royal 
Engineers. 

The first meeting of the Joint Commission took place in Septem- 
ber, 1872, and the final meeting was held at London, May 29, 1876. 
The protocol of this final meeting sets forth the following statement 
showing the outcome of the work of the Commission, the list of 
official documents and records prepared and filed by the Commission 
and the disposition made of them, the method pursued in deter- 
mining the location of the line, and the method to be pursued in 
relocating any portion of the line in case of the loss or obliteration 
of any of the boundary monuments: 

"i. The chief astronomers submit the following documents and 
maps: 

"«. A detailed list in duplicate of forty astronomical stations, in 
addition to one for the location of the most northwestern point of 
the Lake of the Woods, at which observations were taken under 
their superintendence, to determine the line described in the second 
article of the convention of London (signed October 20, 1818), 
between the terminal points, viz, the most northwestern point of 
the Lake of the Woods and the eastern end of the international 
boundary-line previously marked between Akamina, in the Rocky 
Mountains, and the western coast of North America. 

''' b. A descriptive list in duplicate of three hundred and eighty- 
eight (388) monuments and marks placed on the boundary-line, as de- 
rived from the astronomical stations enumerated in the list referred 
to in section a of this paragraph. 



78 

" r. A duplicate set of twenty-four maps on a scale of yseSsiT' ^^ 
I inch to 2 miles, illustrating the topography of the country through 
which the boundary-line runs, and indicating the relative positions 
of the various monuments and marks referred to in section b of this 
paragraph. 

"2. The second article of the convention of London, signed 20th 
October, 1818, is read, as follows: 

" ' It is agreed that a line drawn from the most northwestern point 
of the Lake of the Woods, along the forty-ninth parallel of north 
latitude, or if the said point shall not be in the forty-ninth parallel 
of north latitude, then that a line drawn from the said point due 
north or south, as the case may be, vintil the said line shall intersect 
the said parallel of north latitude, and from the point of such inter- 
section due west, along and with the said parallel, shall be the line 
of demarkation between the territories of His Britannic Majesty 
and those of the United States, and that the said line shall form the 
southern boundary of the said territories of his Britannic Majesty 
and the northern boundary of the territories of the United States, 
from the Lake of the Woods to the Stony Mountains.' 

"The duplicate documents and maps enumerated in paragraph 
numbered i — one set for each of the respective governments — hav- 
ing been examined and compared, are authenticated by the signa- 
tures of the commissioners, who agree as follows: 

"i. The three hundred and eighty-eight monuments detailed in 
the list referred to in section b of paragraph numbered i, are on and 
mark the astronomical lines stipulated by the second article of the 
convention of London (signed October 20, 1818) to be the line of 
boundary between the territories of Her Britannic Majesty and of 
the United States of America, from the Lake of the Woods to the 
Stony (i. e. Rocky) Mountains. 

"2. In the intervals between the monuments along the parallel 
of latitude, it is agreed that the line has the curvature of a parallel of 
49° north latitude; and that such characteristic shall determine all 
questions that may hereafter arise with reference to the position of 
the boundary at any point between neighboring monuments. 

"3. It is further agreed that, in the event of any of the said 
three hundred and eighty-eight monuments or marks being oblit- 
erated beyond the power of recognition, the lost site or sites shall 
be recovered by their recorded position relatively to the next neigh- 
boring unobliterated mark or marks." (S. Ex. Doc. No. 41, 44th 
Cong., 2d sess.) 

The duplicate original set, belonging to the United States, of the 
twenty-four sectional maps covering this portion of the boundary, 
which were prepared and filed by the Commission as above stated, 
is now among the other sets of treaty maps in the Department of 
State. A photolithographic reproduction of these maps has since 
been published by this Government. 

No joint report was made by the Commissioners, but separate 
reports by the Commissioner and the chief astronomer on the part of 
the United States were made to this Government, and these reports, 



79 

together with the other official records of the proceedings of the 
Commission on the part of the United States, on file in the Depart- 
ment of State, were communicated to Congress by President Grant 
in a special message, dated February 23, 1877, and will be found 
printed in Senate Executive Document No. 41, Forty-fourth Con- 
gress, second session. These reports and records were afterwards 
reprinted in enlarged form, with illustrations and maps, and pub- 
lished by the United States Government in accordance with an act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1877. 

SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATIONS AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR RE-MARK- 
ING THE LINE FROM THE LAKE OF THE WOODS TO THE PACIFIC 
OCEAN. 

The question of the more complete definition and marking of the 
entire boundary between the United States and Canada wherever it 
was insufficiently defined was one of the subjects submitted to the 
Joint High Commission in 1898-99 for settlement, but the further 
demarcation of this particular portion of the line did not come up for 
consideration at that time. Soon after the adjournment of the Joint 
High Commission, however, the British ambassador informed Secre- 
tary Hay, in his note of July 23, 1900, that the Canadian Government 
desired — 

"to join with the Government of the United States in an examina- 
tion of the whole of the southern boundary of Canada for the pur- 
pose of re-establishing the lost monuments and of placing such 
supplementary monuments as may appear necessary to meet modern 
requirements." 

This portion of the line was particularly referred to among others, 
and in connection with this proposal it was stated that — 

"many complaints have been made from time to time of the disap- 
pearance of monuments and the consequent difficulty of determin- 
ing the exact position of the boundary, while the British Columbia 
portion of the line was in November, 1892, the subject of a formal 
request by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for not only a re-estab- 
lishment of lost posts, but also for an additional or supplementary 
survey, on the ground that the demarcation by the Commissioners 
was not sufficiently complete for modern requirements." 

Wesf of the Rocky Mountains. 

This suggestion was supplemented by a note on January 14, 
1901, from the British ambassador to the Secretary of State calling 
attention to the importance that joint measures be taken for the 
examination of the whole of the 49th parallel of latitude west of 
the Rocky Mountains with a view to the better demarcation of this 
boundary, and more especially at three points, to wit: (i) Near 



8o 

Tobacco Plains, in the East Kootenai District; (2) between Grand 
Forks and Midway; and (3) near Chilliwack, north of Mount Baker. 
Secretary Hay replied, on January 29, 1901, acquiescing in the 
suggestion and stating that — 

"the inconveniences and uncertainties attending the absence of 
boundary marks in many places of the northwestern line which were 
unsettled and virtually inaccessible when the Commissioners under 
the Treaty of 1846 set the line, but to which the discovery of min- 
eral deposits is now attracting settlers, have been lately brought 
with urgency to the attention of this Government, and the sugges- 
tion of a joint demarcation was under consideration at the time of 
the receipt of your note." 

He expressed the opinion, however, that the proposed joint ac- 
tion of the two Governments would require an express convention, 
and suggested that such convention should provide for the reloca- 
tion or ascertainment of all the defective parts of the western bound- 
ary under existing treaties from Lake Superior to the Pacific Ocean. 
He also stated that — 

"It is the purpose of the United States Government to dispatch 
forthwith to the State of Washington a surveying party to make a 
reconnaissance of the region through which the boundary parallel 
runs, to the end that the information so to be procured may be 
made use of for the purposes of the suggested convention, or to 
aid toward the conclusion of an intervening partial delimitation as 
a modus vwendi." 

In this connection Secretary Hay requested that this Government 
be supplied with copies of the pertinent field notes and maps pre- 
served by the British Commissioners who took part in the western 
division of the northwestern survey. 

In answer to Secretary Hay's proposal, the British ambassador 
wrote on April 4, 1901, stating that the proposal was in accord with 
the desire of the Canadian Government as previously expressed, 
differing therefrom only in the proposition that the action necessary 
should be provided for by a formal convention, and on behalf of the 
Canadian Government he acceded to that proposition. In response 
to the request for copies of the field notes and maps of the British 
Boundary Commission on the western division of the boundary, the 
Canadian Government reported that there did not appear to be any 
record of the work done on this portion of the line with the exception 
of a volume of maps printed in the Ordnance Survey Office at South- 
ampton, a copy of which was preserved in the Canadian Department 
of the Interior, which volume contained in addition to the maps — 

"a list of monuments, their distances apart, their geographical and 
topographical positions, and their kind, whether iron, stone, or 
earth." 



8i 

Photographic copies of these maps and documents were offered to 
the United States Government if desired. It was further stated that — 

"a search was made in London a few years ago by an officer of the 
Department of the Interior for field notes of this line, but without 
success." 

The request for copies of these documents was subsequently 
withdrawn for the reason, as appears in Secretary Hay's note of 
April 17, 1901, to the British ambassador, that after consultation 
with the Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Survey the con- 
clusion was reached that the information contained in the maps and 
documents referred to was on file in the Department of State. (See 
also letter of April 11, 1901, from Charles D. Walcott, Director of 
the United States Geological Survey, to the Secretary of State.) 

On April 3, 1902, Secretary Hay wrote to the British ambassador 
to inform him that during the past year the contemplated examina- 
tion above referred to of the boundary had been completed by offi- 
cers of the Government, "who made a careful survey of the boundary 
along the 49th parallel west of the Rocky Mountains to its western 
terminus on the coast," and that their report disclosed the fact that 
the original monuments were for the most part in a good state of 
preservation and the location of those which had disappeared could 
be recovered. He sums up the situation as follows: 

"It appears, therefore, that the boundary established by the 
Joint Commission under the Treaty of 1846 is at the present time 
marked by visible monuments at irregular intervals, and that what 
remains to be done in order to render the marking thoroughly 
effective for the requirements of the present time and of the future 
is merely the replacement of the old monuments by more permanent 
ones and the interpolation of intermediate monuments at convenient 
points along the existent established boundary." 

In view of the situation thus disclosed. Secretary Hay withdrew 
his earlier suggestion that a new convention was necessary for the 
demarcation of the boundary, stating that under existing conditions 
it seemed practicable — 

"to provide for the immediate marking of the boundary by the 
joint action of competent field parties appointed to that end by the 
respective Governments;" 

and, in conclusion, he suggested that on the part of Canada an officer 
or officers be designated to — 

"confer with the Superintendent of the United States Coast and 
Geodetic Survey and the Director of the United States Geological 
Survey for the purpose of arranging necessary details for restoring 
the original monuments and establishing additional ones in order to 
improve and render more effective the boundary marked and agreed 
upon by the Joint Commission of 1856 to 1869." 

N B 6 



82 

It will be observed that Secretary Hay's proposal as here made 
related only to the portion of the boundary west of the Rocky Moun- 
tains. The British embassy, however, in notifying the Department 
of State of Great Britain's acceptance of the proposal, seems to have 
assumed that it applied to the entire distance from Lake Superior 
to the Pacific, and with that understanding Mr. W. F. King, Chief 
Astronomer of the Canadian Department of the Interior, was desig- 
nated as the representative of the British Government to arrange 
details and carry out the work. (Note of August 9, 1902, Mr. 
Raikes to Mr. Adee.) 

In acknowledging the notification of Mr. King's appointment, 
with respect to the entire boundary from Lake Superior to the 
Pacific Ocean, the Department of State on August 13, 1902, in turn 
informed the British embassy that "the representative of the United 
States for this work is Mr. Otto H. Tittmann, the Superintendent of 
the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey." 

Under the sundry civil appropriation act approved March 3, 
1903, however, Congress authorized only the work of marking and 
mapping that portion of the 49th parallel between the summit of the 
Rocky Mountains and Point Roberts, and on June 9, 1903, Secretary 
Hay authorized both Charles D. Walcott, Director of the United 
States Geological Survey, and O. H. Tittmann, Superintendent of 
the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, "to sign as United 
States Commissioners in all matters relating to the work of marking 
and mapping that portion of the boundary, including the signature 
with the British Commissioner of the final report and maps." 

The arrangements for the joint action of the two Governments 
in remonumenting and otherwise marking the boundary from the 
Rocky Mountains to Point Roberts were soon thereafter perfected 
by the Commissioners above named on the part of each Government, 
and under their direction the work has since been carried on and is 
understood to be now nearing completion. 

East of the Rocky Mountai?is. 

The question of re-marking this portion of the line has not been 
carried beyond the expression of a concurrence of views between 
the two Governments as to the desirability of joint action in that 
direction, with the exception of the resurvey at the point referred 
to below. 

On November 14, 1905, Mr. W. F. King, the Commissioner ap- 
pointed as above stated to represent Canada in any joint action that 
might be undertaken in remonumenting this part of the line, wrote 
to Mr. Tittmann, the Superintendent of the United States Coast 



^3 

and Geodetic Survey, stating that he had been requested to mark 
the boundary line along the 49th parallel at North Portal Station 
on the St. Paul and Moose Jaw branch of the Canadian Pacific Rail- 
road, in longitude about 132° 30', not very far from the middle of 
the prairie section of the boundary line, and that if it was agreeable 
to Mr. Tittmann and Doctor Walcott, who were the Commissioners 
appointed on the part of the United States to supervise the re- 
marking of the line west of the Rocky Mountains, he would send a 
surveyor to mark the line at the point indicated, with the under- 
standing that this marking was temporary, pending the making of 
the joint survey. 

Mr. Tittmann notified the Secretary of State on November 17, 
1905, of the receipt of this note, expressing the opinion that he 
deemed it desirable to conduct such operations jointly for obvious 
reasons, but calling attention to the fact that the appropriation 
made for the survey of the 49th parallel west of the Rocky Moun- 
tains was not applicable to surveys between Lake Superior and the 
Rocky Mountains. On the following day the Secretary of State 
wrote to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor requesting that the 
Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Survey be detailed to 
carry out the wishes of the Department of State in making the 
proposed survey at and in the neighborhood of Portal, N. Dak. This 
was done and the work was undertaken as proposed, and it is under- 
stood to be now nearing completion. 



SEVERAL SMALL SECTIONS OF UNITED STATES TERRITORY SEPA- 
RATED FROM THE UNITED STATES BY THE BOUNDARY AS LAID 
DOWN AT THE NORTHWEST ANGLE OF THE LAKE OF THE WOODS. 

A question of considerable importance and interest has arisen in 
connection with the course of the line from the northwesternmost 
point of the Lake of the Woods south to the 49th parallel. 

The course of the boundary from Lake Superior through the 
Lake of the Woods as it approaches the northwesternmost point 
passes in several instances back and forth across the line drawn due 
south from the northwesternmost point to the 49th parallel, thus 
making a series of loops embracing small sections of water and land 
in some instances, which, strictly speaking, lie on the American side 
of the boundary lines but are entirely surrounded by Canadian 
territory. 

On April 26, 1904, Mr. W. A. Richards, Commissioner of Public 
Lands in the Department of the Interior, wrote to the Secretary of 
the Interior, calling this circumstance to his attention. He stated 
in regard to it that his office had theretofore proceeded on the theory 



84 

that the lands within these loops belonged to the United States, and 
he was inclined to adhere to that conclusion; but, as the question 
was not entirely without doubt, he requested that it be given serious 
consideration before definite action was taken to dispose of the sec- 
tions of land referred to. These lands, he stated, had been surveyed 
by this Government as a part of the Chippewa ceded Indian lands 
to be disposed of under the act of January 14, 1889 (27 Stat. 642), 
as amended by the act of June 27, 1902 (32 Stat. 400), known in the 
Land Office records as LotJ, sec. 10, T. 168 N., R. 35 W., 5 P. M. 
The question was thereupon referred, on May 21, 1904, to the 
Secretary of State, with a request for the views of the Department 
in regard to it. An opinion on the question was thereafter rendered 
by the Solicitor for the Department of State, from which opinion 
the following extract is taken: 

"But the line described in the Treaty, running from Rainy Lake 
to the said most northwest point was a meandering line, hence as 
it approached to within about one mile from the northwest point it 
crossed and recrossed the meridional-boundary line thereby enclos- 
ing small parcels of land in the loops formed by the intersections of 
the meandering and the meridional lines. 

"One of these parcels containing twelve and five one-hundredth 
(i2-j|-o^) acres has been surveyed by the Land Office, as a part of the 
Chippewa ceded Indian lands which are to be disposed of pursuant 
to the Act of Congress of January 14, 1889, as amended by the act 
of June 27, 1902. The question raised is whether this parcel be- 
longs to the United States or Canada, and involves the question of 
jurisdiction between the two Governments. 

"It has been suggested that since it was the intendment of the 
treaty to settle finally the continuous boundary line between the 
two countries, all that portion of the line described in the treaty 
which lies north of the first intersection of the meandering and the 
meridional lines should be rejected. This would leave a single con- 
tinuous boundary line running along the line described from Rainy 
Lake to its first point of intersection with the meridian line, thence 
south along the meridian line to the 49th parallel, thence west to 
the Rocky Mountains. This interpretation would set aside all that 
portion of the described meandering line which extends from the 
first point of intersection to the northwest point and would also set 
aside the northwest point as a point in the boundary line mentioned 
in the three treaties, and would convert it into a mere starting point 
to find the boundary line. 

"If either the United States or Canada should attempt to exer- 
cise jurisdiction over either of the small conclaves within the loops, 
the title to which each Government had claimed and which neither 
had granted to the other, it could only be asserted on behalf of 
Canada by rejecting an integral part of the lines described in the 
Treaty, and could only be asserted by the United States Government 
by its claiming lands partly lying west of the said meridian and 
north of the east portion of the boundary line along the 49th parallel 



85 

and by insisting on title to lands included in the loops simply 
because enclosed, although not granted to it. Before the treaties 
were formed, both parties claimed these lands; they have not agreed 
to their division or distribution, unless we accept the interpretation 
of the treaty above mentioned, in order to effectuate its manifest 
intendment to settle the northwest boundary. As to this, no opinion 
is expressed. 

"In view of the premises it would not seem advisable to make 
the disposition of the lands now under consideration by the Land 
Office." 

This opinion was adopted by the Secretary of State and com- 
municated by him to the Secretary of the Interior in his letter of 
June 25, 1904. 



S D 1. 50. 











<' 



<^ vr>, ° Y// »«\\v 



<*. ". :' ." (-,^ \D 'o . ^ " A. 








^O 



o V 






^o 



,ny 



.^' 







,0 






o V 



•^<^ 



<'. 










•'J * _ ,5 A' 






^^■V. 



0- -, 



o 









Z^- 



xOv\ 






o' ,0-' -^^ *. . •' o,^ ^O^ 



4 o^ 



J 



"^^ ^^i#/ /'"^ ^^yi%P^ ^ % \^ipX ^""X ^^vW: 



'"<'-. 



C 










vP 



.^ 









*s"^ 



o 



<<Sv 



'^oV 






.-^^^ 



c^ 



.V'.^^^- 
V 



,-^ 



A^ 



rr 



V, 



>\ , " « ^ '^^ 



-r-^^' 



V 



^. 



.«■ 



^^-'<^. 






C^ 






r '4^^ 



'' Z> N ' 



V 









/ V^^'v ^■■-•V v-^'-'/ \--- 

^,0^ V *'-° v^^ °^ ^ = "'' '^^ ^^-^ "'■ ,\^' ... -^^ 









c' 



■'^ 
















-^^0^ 

^-^^x. 



^. c^ 









(T' 



o 1, 









-c-^ 



^* ; 



,^..#1l, 



-^>c. -^^ .^ A^^^.\ ^^ ^^ /^ 






■^ o 






^ . " •> ^ , V_' d 

C-, .0 ^ ' • °' 






-$- 



X. 



<* 



<>. 






G^- 



-* " d^ *0 "^ 1^1' ■;v' \v; \\ -<* 






*• 
&' 



o ' ,0 









z^. 



G^ \3 'o . . « A < 



39 



. ■'•>-' aG 
* ^ o 



I \ s • " , 

" J DOBeS BROS. 

' I LIBRARY BINDING 

O 

:^ :DEC 6 9 

■^ ST. AUGUSTINE 



* O N ^ .0 



e 

°^. 



* o N - ^V 






^^^ 















*r^o' .0-' 



^^ 



> 



'^ 



'/, I 



^ii^'-rT'^ 






c^\^. 







/ '^ -^ \ ^ 

' o . » * A <' . "■ ^ . . 5 ' 






<°,<. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




